JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

The present Revision Petition under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Kamaljit Singh Gill against the impugned Order dated 29.04.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, in First Appeal No. 293 of 2010 vide which the Appeal filed by the United India Insurance Company was allowed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, dated 27.01.2010 in Consumer Complaint No. 217 of 2009 was set-aside.

2.      Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that the Complainant obtained a Householders Insurance Policy bearing No. 201300/48/05/32/00001112 which was issued by the Insurer on 31.03.2006 after receiving full premium of the Policy. The Policy covered risks of damage, theft etc. and was valid up to 30.03.2007.  Vide this Policy, the jewellery belonging to the wife of the Complainant and that of his daughter-in-law was also covered along with other risk covers of various items. In the month of January 2007, the daughter-in-law of the Complainant namely, Dr. Usha, took some of her jewellery along with the jewellery of her mother-in-law i.e. wife of the Complainant to Chandigarh where she was residing temporarily at House No. 1203-A, Sector 32-B, Chandigarh, for wearing them in the Lohri function. On 11.01.2007, when the daughter-in-law of the Complainant was away on her duty at Govt. Medical College & Hospital Chandigarh, her car was stolen and a First Information Report (FIR) No. 13 dated 11.01.2007 was lodged in Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh. During the theft, the jewellery belonging to the wife and daughter-in-law of the Complainant was stolen as well from the house of the daughter-in-law for which the Policy was taken from the Insurer. The Complainant thereafter immediately informed the Insurance Company of the theft and submitted his claim; and completed all formalities as required by the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company did not allow the claim of the Complainants. The Complainant is a Heart patient and has undergone a major Heart surgery in the month of November 2007. The Complainant is suffering serious financial crisis and made lots of verbal as well as written requests by way of Registered Legal Notice to the Insurance Company dated 15.12.2008, but the Insurance Company has failed to reply to the said Legal Notice.  Aggrieved by the act of the Insurance Company, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the District Commission.

3.      The District Commission vide its Order dated 27.01.2010 partly allowed the Complaint. The relevant extracts of the Order of the District Commission are set out as below-

“6. …In view of the above discussion, the Opposite Party United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,000/- to the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24.04.2007 when the formal claim was lodged with the Insurance Company i.e. Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as costs of the litigation to the Complainant. The compliance of this Order be made by the Opposite Parties within one month from the receipt of copy of this Order.

The copy of the Order be sent to the parties through Registered Post free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.”

4.      Aggrieved by the Order of the District Commission, the Insurance Company filed Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the Appeal of the Insurance Company vide Order dated 29.04.2013 and set-aside the Order of the District Commission. The relevant extract of the Order of the State Commission are set out as below-

“14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Appellant is accepted and the impugned Order dated 27.01.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the Complaint filed by the Respondent is dismissed. The Respondent has filed a false, frivolous and baseless Complaint and as such same deserves dismissal with special costs. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with Rs. 5,000/- as costs…”

5.      Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition raising the following key issues:

1. The findings recorded in the impugned Order by the State Commission are not supported by any material worth evidence; hence it is unsustainable both on law and fact;
2. The findings recorded by the State Commission run contrary to the documents available on record and hence perverse;
3. The interpretation given by the State Commission to the word “Family” cannot have any application to the situation of the present case in as much as in the Covering Page of the Policy issued by the Respondent Insurance Company it has been clearly mentioned that the coverage was applicable not only to the Petitioner but also his family members which includes sons and daughter-in-law residing with the Insured. There is no denial of the fact that at the time of the issue of the Insurance Policy in question, the daughter-in-law, namely Dr. Usha was residing with the Insured Petitioner. Therefore, the State Commission committed the error of excluding the daughter-in-law from the purview of the term “Family” and thus the same is unsustainable;
4. The State Commission failed to take judicial notice of the Clause mentioned in the Insurance Policy inter-se parties, Part-III of which deals with All Risks (Jewellery & Valuables). The said Clause nullifies the findings recorded by the State Commission which was returned with the findings that the Insurance Company is justified in repudiating the claim of the Petitioner since the theft was committed at a place other than from the house of the Insured;
5. The State Commission failed to apply its judicial mind to the admitted facts of the case emerging from a conjoint reading of the condition mentioned in the Cover Policy, defining the family in case of an Insured and the condition mentioned under Part-III of the Policy, making the Insurance Company liable to compensate the Insured in case of loss or damage to the jewellery or valuables anywhere in India. Thus, the State Commission was clearly in error in setting aside the Order of the District Commission which directed the Insurance Company to compensate the Petitioner for the stolen jewellery;
6.           The findings recorded by the State Commission to the effect that “even no FIR was registered by the Respondent or any one of his family member regarding any theft of the ornaments” are perverse considering the admitted fact of the case of the parties that Dr. Usha, w/o Mr. Narpinderjit Singh and daughter-in-law of the Petitioner had lodged the FIR with the Police officials intimating theft committed at her house at Chandigarh. According to the definition of the family mentioned in the Cover Policy, there cannot be any doubt with regard to the competence of Dr. Usha to lodge the FIR in the matter being the daughter-in-law of the Insured;
7. Even otherwise, the impugned Order of the State Commission is bad and illegal and is not sustainable at all both on facts and law and hence is liable to be set-aside with all its legal consequences.                                                                                                             6.      The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner argued that under the terms and conditions of the Policy, there is no requirement that in case of theft, the FIR to that effect is to be lodged only by the Insured.  Even otherwise, since the definition of “Family” includes the daughter-in-law of the Insured, the lodging of FIR at the instance of the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner is legal. As for the evidence regarding theft of the insured ornaments, the list of jewellery items submitted to the Police officials at the time of reporting of the theft matches with the description given in the Policy. The list of jewellery items mentioned at Serial No. 3 of the Policy clearly mentions that jewellery and valuables belonging to the Proposer and his family members permanently residing with him are covered. It is an admitted fact that Dr. Usha is the daughter-in-law of the Proposer and who because of her employment under the State Govt. was residing temporarily at Chandigarh, the place of her posting. The finding of the State Commission that the FIR was not lodged by the Insured or any of his family members is a far-fetched and a myopic view of the definition of word “Family” provided under the Insurance Policy. Since the daughter-in-law is covered within the definition of the word “Family”, the finding of the State Commission excluding the daughter-in-law from the definition is clearly perverse on the face of the record of the case. The finding of the State Commission that the claim of the Petitioner was baseless, false and frivolous is perverse in view of the fact of the FIR being registered at the instance of the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner. The finding of the State Commission that no intimation was given to the Bank, runs contrary to the pleadings in as much Petitioner never set up any case that the stolen jewellery items were kept in the locker of any bank and the same were carried by his daughter-in-law. The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant further argued that the meaning of the term “family” interpreted by the State Commission to reject the otherwise genuine claim of the Petitioner is contrary to the meaning provided under the Policy.                            7.      The Ld. Counsel for Complainants has argued that the jewellery that was taken by the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner was not covered under the Insurance Policy in question. The house of the Petitioner and the articles thereof were insured at Jalandhar and admittedly, there was no theft in the house of the Petitioner at Jalandhar. The theft took place in the house of the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner at Chandigarh which was not covered under the Policy. It is submitted that the State Commission rightly held that ‘the version of the Petitioner is not correct that the ornaments which were stolen from the daughter-in-law’s house at Chandigarh were insured for himself and his family members including the daughter-in-law’. It is submitted that the FIR was registered for theft/burglary at H.No. 1203-A, Sector-30B Doctor Flats, Chandigarh. However, the Clause-II of the Policy Schedule clearly states that the “Burglary, housebreaking in Larceny or theft: All contents in the premises stated at above address” i.e. 73-A, SAS Nagar PO Model Tower, Jalandhar City. Therefore, the theft/burglary in question is not covered under the scope of the Insurance Policy. There was no insurance except the one at the house mentioned at Jalandhar to the Petitioner, his wife and to the dependent son or daughter, all living under roof using those ornaments. The loss being suffered at the hand of the daughter-in-law and still to be borne by the Insurance Company is beyond the scope of Insurance. Further, there is no scope for identification as to which of the stolen ornaments were of the mother-in-law.  Therefore there is no question of fixing any liability on the basis of FIR because there is no yard-stick as to how to assess the loss. The Ld. Counsel for Insurance Company further argued that without prejudice to the rights of the Insurance Company, the Petitioner shall bear upon itself 1% of the sum insured in respect of each domestic appliance separately or the sum of Rs.25/- whichever is higher, of each and every loss or damage in respect of which a claim is admitted under this Policy. Further, as per the report of the Investigator, there is a total loss of Rs.50,190/- in the house at Chandigarh, although the same is not covered under the Policy. Hence, the Petitioner has wrongly claimed an amount of Rs.1,76,000/-.                                 8.      Having carefully perused the available material on record and after hearing the submissions made by the contesting parties, this Commission finds merit in the present Revision Petition.  This is so because daughter-in-law of the insured, from whose custody the jewellery items were stolen is undoubtedly one of his own family members especially in the Indian context. Even otherwise, any individual is required to report about the occurrence of any cognizable offence, (which in the present case happens to be the theft/burglary) in the concerned Police Station at the earliest.  The own car of the Complainant’s daughter-in-law, as also the jewellery had been stolen.  The same were covered under the concerned Policy upto a limit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs as can be seen from Clause III in the Section-wise Premium details of the Policy in question which is on page 40 of the Paper Book.  Furthermore, in the body of the Policy, in Section III pertaining to ALL RISKS (JEWELLERY AND VALUABLES), it was provided -         “The company will indemnify the insured or any member of her/his family in respect of loss of or damage to jewellery and/or babies caused by Accident or Misfortune whilst anywhere in India.  Provided that the liability of the company in respect of any item in any one period of Insurance will not exceed the sum Insured set against such item in the schedule hereto and not proceeding in the aggregate the total sum Insured hereby….….”

8. (emphasis added)

    

   9.      So, it is immaterial that theft of ornaments in question had taken place in Chandigarh and not at the concerned premises in Jalandhar, Punjab, since part of the Insurance coverage pertaining to burglary, house breaking in Larceny or theft, was covered to the limit of Rs. 4,34,700/- in Item II of the Section-wise Premium details (Page 39 of the Paper Book) while All Risks for Jewellery and Valuables were subsequently covered under Item III to the limit of Rs. 3.00 lakhs (Page 4 of the Paper Book) and clarification in respect of Section III specifically provided that the indemnification of the Insured or any of his family members in respect of loss or damage to jewellery and/or babies caused by Accident or Misfortune, “whilst anywhere in India”, meaning thereby that any such loss to the said jewellery was indemnified even outside the concerned Premises, so long as the loss occurred within the territory of India.  It is even otherwise a very credible and believable version of the Complainant that Insured jewellery items were taken by his daughter-in-law to Chandigarh for being worn on the occasion of “Lohri”, which was just two days after the theft had taken place in Chandigarh.

   10.    For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission is in agreement with the well-reasoned Order of the Ld. District Forum and is consequently of the opinion that the Ld. State Commission had acted erroneously in setting aside the said Order.

   11.    The Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed after reversing the impugned Order and restoring the order of the District Forum.   Parties to bear their own costs.

   12.    Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.