Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S. Munjani Brothers

V.K. Jain, J

The complainant/respondent had obtained a Jewellers Block  Insurance Policy, for the period from 28.4.2001 to 27.4.2002. The said policy covered the loss of diamonds belonging to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that it used to send diamonds from its Mumbai office and then to its Bhavnagar and Surat office for processing the said diamonds which later on used to be exported after they had been processed and polished. This is also the case of the complainant that its Bhavnagar Branch sent a parcel containing 689.11 Carat of diamonds in two bags to its Surat Branch through a courier (Angadia) Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. The courier carried a parcel containing diamonds to Surat by train. When the courier was carrying the diamonds to the branch office of the complainant at Surat, he was robbed of the said parcel. The matter was reported to the police. An FIR bearing No.334 of 2001 was registered under Section 392 and 114 of IPC. The complainant then lodged a complaint alleging loss of 689.11 Carat of diamonds valued at Rs.5194456/-.

A surveyor was appointed by the appellant to assess the loss to the complainant. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1170384.42. Initially the assessment made by the surveyor was accepted by the complainant but later on the said acceptance was withdrawn and the complainant reiterated that its loss was Rs.5194456/-. The claim was eventually repudiated vide letter dated 12.1.2004 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-

"With reference to the captioned claim, the competent authority has repudiated the claim on the grounds of policy condition No.9 of our Jewellers Block Policy, which reads as follows:

"If the claim be FRADULENT or if any FRADULENT MEANS or devices be used by the insured or anyone acting on their behalf to obtain any benefit under this policy or if any destruction or damage be occasioned by the wilful act or with the connivance of the insured all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited."

Hence the claim is repudiated by us and the file is closed from our side. We regret for the inconvenience caused to you."

Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the appellant primarily on the ground that the claim was not genuine.

The State Commission vide its order dated 3.11.2014, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1134963/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the insurer is before us by way of this appeal.

It is not in dispute that the loss of diamonds on account of robbery was covered the insurance policy taken by the complainant. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to what exactly was the loss suffered by the complainant in the incident of robbery involving a courier.

The copy of the FIR No.334 of 2001 has not been placed on record but a final police report dated 10.3.2002 issued by Inspector of Police Station Surat City would show that the complainant/courier, namely, Ketanbhai Ranchodhai Patel was robbed of diamonds worth Rs.230450/-. The case of the complainant/respondent is that the actual value of diamonds was Rs.5194456/- and that they were not disclosing correct value of the consignment to the courier in order to rule out the possibility of the courier replacing the parcel containing rough diamonds. The onus was upon the complainant/respondent to prove that the actual value of the rough diamonds stolen from the possession of the courier was more than the amount disclosed in the police report, the said amount being only Rs. 230450/-. The complainant did not produce the stock register of its Bhavnagar Branch to prove the quantity and value of the rough diamonds in its Bhavnagar office before handing over the parcel of rough consignment to the courier. The complainant did not produce the said stock register to prove the quantity and value of the diamond left at Bhavnagar office after delivery of the stock parcel to the courier. No documentary proof of value of the parcel delivered to the courier for carrying the same from Bhavnagar to Surat was produced. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the surveyor in our opinion ought to have gone by the valuation disclosed in the FIR lodged with the police.

Though the complainant claims to have sent a letter to the concerned police station on 2.10.2001 alleging therein that the actual value of the stolen diamond was Rs.5194456/-, the final report which of a much later date, the said report being dated 10.3.2002 shows the value of the stolen diamonds at Rs.230450/-. It is thus evident that even the concerned police station did not accept the claim that the actual value of the stolen diamond was Rs.5194456/-. In these circumstances, the insurer in our opinion was justified in not going by the valuation made by the surveyor though the insurer in our opinion, ought to have allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.230450/- instead of out rightly rejecting the same.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay Rs.230450/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. six months from the date of the lodgement of the claim till the date of payment. The interest shall be paid only till the date on which the appellant deposited the entire amount payable in terms of the order of the State Commission with the said Commission. The appeal stands disposed of.