AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
The complainant / appellant who is in the business of selling jewellery had taken an insurance policy from the respondent for a sum assured of Rs.1,60,00,000/-, in respect of the jewellery kept in his shop. The policy was taken for the period from 25.6.2009 to 24.6.2010. During subsistence of the policy a burglary happened in the shop of the complainant and a number of articles made of gold were stolen. A claim was lodged with the insurer but nothing was paid to the complainant, which compelled him to institute a consumer complaint, seeking payment of Rs.97,35,710/- from the respondent.
The complaint was resisted by the insurer, which admitted the insurance policy taken by the appellant but took the plea that the loss was intimated to them only on 15.12.2009 whereas, the burglary had happened on 13.12.2009. It was also stated that the surveyor had assessed the net loss to the complainant at Rs.8,72,550/- and that the complainant had failed to submit the documents required by the surveyor. These documents included police inspection report and charge sheet / non-tracing certificate. The claim according to the insurer could not be processed for want of these documents.
The State Commission in its order dated 27.11.2013, directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.8,72,550/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of realization. A sum of Rs.75,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- as the cost of litigation. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this appeal. The insurer has not challenged the order passed by the State Commission, thereby accepting the said order.
The interim survey report filed by the insurer to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
"V Physical Verification and Estimate of Quantity Lost:
We carried out a complete physical verification of stocks on 17.12.2009 and 18.12.2009 left over after the burglary and the shortage of gold was found to be 4,182.10 Grams. Shortage is computed below:
Quantity
(In Grams)
Book stock of gold as on 13.12.2009
33,158,710
Add: Purchases from 14/12 tp 17.12.2009
6.200
33,164,910
Less: Sales from 14/12 to 17/12/2009
3.300
33,161.610
Less: Stock as physically verified by us as on 17.12.2009
28,979.510
Loss due to Burglary
4,182.100
Loss Claimed
4,394.000
Excess Claimed
211.900
IX Estimate of Loss:
Based on the quantity of Gold Jewellery lost as computed above, the value of jewellery lost would be as under:
Gms.
Shortage of Gold Jewellery (as computed above)
4,182.100
Less: Recovered by Police
1,870.000
Net loss due to burglary
2,312.100
Rate per gm of Ornament Gold (22 ct.) as on 11.12.2009 as per the Hindu dated 12th December, 2009
Rs.1,610
Value of Jewellery Lost
Rs.37,22,481
X Adequacy of sum insured:
Sum Insured under the policy is Rs.1.60 lakhs. Value at risk at the time of loss would work out to Rs.682.60 lakhs as shown below:
Book stock of gold as on 13.12.2009
33,158,710 Gms
Rate per gm as on 11.12.2009
Rs.1,610
A. Value of Gold Jewellery as on 13.12.2009
Rs.5,33,85,523
Book Stock of Silver as on 13.12.2009
4,92,548 Gms
Rate per gm as on 11.12.2009
Rs.30.20
B. Value of Silver Jewellery as on 13.12.2009
Rs.1,48,74,950
(A+B) Total Value of Risk
Rs.6,82,60,473
There is under insurance to the extent of 76.56%.
XI Provisional Final Adjustment:
Subject to production of documents and information called for vide our letter dated 17.12.2009, we adjust the Insured's loss as under:-
Rs.
Loss Assessed as above
37,22,481
Less: Underinsurance @ 76.56%
28,49,931
Net Assessed Loss
8,72,550
It would thus be seen that the surveyor very fairly and reasonably calculated the actual loss to the complainant based upon the book stock of the gold on the date of burglary and the sales and purchases made from 14.12.2009 to 17.12.2009. He thus, found that the total loss was 4182 gms of gold though the complainant had claimed 4394 gms. The sales and purchases from 14.12.2009 to 17.12.2009 were considered because the physical verification was carried out on 17.12.2009 whereas the loss had happened on 13.12.2009.
The survey report shows that 1.870 Kg. gold jewellery was recovered by the police and after deducting that quantity the net loss of gold due to burglary was 2312 gms. Applying the gold rate on 11.12.2009, the surveyor found the gross loss on account of theft of jewellery of Rs.37,22,481/-.
The surveyor also found that the total gold and silver in the shop of the complainant was Rs.6,82,60,473/- on the date of the burglary whereas the insurance cover had been taken only for Rs.1,60,00,000/-. Thus, there was an under insurance to the extent of 76.56%. Applying the under insurance the surveyor arrived at the figure of Rs.8,72,550/-. In my opinion, the report of the surveyor is absolutely fair and reasonable and does not call for any rejection or modification by this Commission. The surveyor rightly applied the under insurance since value of the jewellery at risk was many times more than the insurance cover taken by the complainant.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.