AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to deposit the cost imposed on previous date of hearing. She is permitted to deposit the cost during the course of the day.
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh, Shimla dated 11.12.2012 in First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the insurance company, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.
Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that complainant is running a jewellery shop at Nagtora Bagwan in Kangra District. The complainant had insured the jewellery stored in the shop vide insurance policy valid w.e.f. 17.12.2009 to 16.12.2010. During the currency of the insurance policy, a burglary took place in the shop of the complainant on the night intervening 26 & 27 July, 2010. It is the case of the complainant th th that jewellery and cash worth Rs.1,17,896/- was taken away by the miscreants and FIR in this regard was recorded. Insurance company was informed and claim was filed. The insurance company repudiated the claim. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.
Respondent insurance company in its written statement resisted the complaint and claimed that the claim was rightly repudiated, firstly because stolen articles admittedly were not kept in safe and also on the ground that complainant had not taken proper care to protect the property inasmuch as, the CCTV camera installed in the shop was not in working order and even the security guard was not present on the date of fateful night.
The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party as under: "In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the assessed amount of damage to the complainant which is to the tune of Rs.84851/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its actual payment. The complainant is also held entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment, having been caused by the opposite party and he is also held entitled for litigation charges to the tune of Rs.5000/- from the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, which be sent to the parties, free of costs, by post and the file after its due completion be consigned to the record room."
Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent opposite party filed an appeal and State Commission vide the impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. This has led to the filing of the revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that State Commission while allowing the appeal has ignored the fact that stolen articles and cash were lying locked in a drawer. It is contended that State Commission has also ignored that CCTV was actually installed in the shop but on the relevant night, it was not in working order. It is contended that so far as watchman is concerned, he could not attend his duty on the fateful night.
We do not find merit in the above contention. It is admitted case that articles regarding which insurance claim was filed were lying in a locked drawer. Copy of the insurance policy has been placed on record. On perusal of insurance policy, we find that policy provides for "Special Conditions" which reads as under: "Entire stock to be kept in a locked safe and after business hours; 24 hours watch and ward on premises; All doors and wind to be grilled/shuttered adequately."
On reading of the above, it is clear that insured was supposed to keep cash and stock in a locked safe even after business hours and he was also to ensure 24 hours watch and ward on the premises. Undisputedly, the claim filed by the insured is in respect of cash and valuables lying in a locked drawer but not in a safe. It has come in evidence that burglars tried to break open the
same but could not succeed. Had the insured kept the stolen articles and cash in the safe, the theft would not have occurred. Further, it is admitted case of the parties that on the fateful night, the watchman was not on duty. Thus, this is a clear case of violation of Special Conditions reproduced above. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission holding that repudiation of claim by the respondent insurance company was justified.
In view of the discussion above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.