AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J
This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 28.08.2017/29.08.2017 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent insurer against the order of the District Forum was partly allowed. The petitioner/complainant obtained an insurance policy from the respondent which inter-alia covered the laptops, mobile phones kept in the premises of Nehru Institute of Information Technology. The insurance cover provided in respect of the laptops, desktops and accessories etc. was available to the extent of Rs.5 lacs. In the night intervening 8th/9th June 2011, seven laptops and one mobile phone were stolen from the premises of the institute. An FIR in this regard was lodged at the concerned Police Station and the matter was reported to the insurer. A surveyor was appointed by the insurer to assess the loss to the complainant/petitioner. The surveyor, vide his report dated 27.07.2011, assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.2,29,950/-. The claim however, was repudiated by the insurer vide repudiation letter dated 29.09.2011, which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
This is to inform you that your claim does not come under perimeter of Terms and conditions of the operative clause of the Burglary Insurance Policy. Since there was no sign of violent and forcible entry into your business premises. Hence your claim is not admissible, The Merits "No Claim".
Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint.
The complaint was resisted by the OP on the grounds on which the claim had been repudiated.
The District Forum, vide its order dated 25.05.2016, directed the insurer to pay a sum of Rs.3,37,875/- alongwith compensation quantified at Rs.20,000/- and imposed a fine of Rs.40,000/- upon the insurer.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 28.08.2017/29.08.2017, the State Commission partly allowed the said appeal by reducing the quantum of compensation to Rs.2,29,950/- as per the assessment made by the surveyor. The State Commission also awarded compensation awarded at Rs.20,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission.
The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner/complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.3,37,875/- awarded by the District Forum or to the amount of Rs.2,29,950/- awarded by the State Commission for the loss of the laptops and mobile phones.
A perusal of the FIR would show that the complainant himself had estimated the value of the stolen goods at Rs.2 lacs while lodging the FIR. If the value was more than Rs.3 lacs as is claimed by the learned counsel for the complainant now, there is no explanation as to why he had estimated the value at Rs.2 lacs while lodging the FIR.
The petitioner/complainant has relied upon the invoices whereby the laptops are alleged to have been purchased for a consideration of Rs.47,775/- each. I have perused the invoices filed by him. They do not bear either the make or model number of the laptops purporting to be sold to the complainant. No reliance on the invoices can be placed since in the ordinary course of business, the seller of the laptops would record not only the brand but also the model number of the laptops in the invoices. The said invoices were not produced before the surveyor for verification. In these circumstances, the view taken by the State Commission seems to be justified and does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The revision petition, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.