State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Geeta Sharma &Parveen; Sharma vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. on 22 September, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 22-09-2008 Appeal No. A-776/2006 (Arising out of Order dated 31-07-2006 passed by the District Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 289/2005) Geeta Sharma & Parveen Sharma, Both R/o. RZ-47A/1, 3rd Floor, South Extension, Shuker Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. . . . Appellant Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. C-20, Community Centre, Janak Complex, Janakpuri, New Delhi. . . . Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. The appellant obtained a householders policy valid from 21-072004 to 20-06-2005, which included the jewellery worth Rs. 1,96,336/-. Initially on 21-07-2004 the policy was obtained for a sum of Rs. 1, 17,777/-. Soon thereafter the insurance amount of jewellery was got enhanced o Rs. 1,96,336/-. On account of theft of jewellery from the car parked outside the temple, the appellant filed the claim for Rs. 1,96,336/-. The claim was rejected on the ground that no reasonable care was taken; and, secondly that it was difficult to believe that a woman would take the entire jewellery for attending function or while going to the market. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum. Vide impugned Order dated 31-07-2006 the District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding the ground of rejection valid.
2. Feeling aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal. The version of the appellants before the District Forum was that they had obtained a householders policy valid from 21-072004 to 20-06-2005, which included the jewellery worth Rs.
1,96,336/-.
Initially on 21-07-2004 the policy was obtained for a sum of Rs. 1, 17,777/-, however, soon thereafter the insurance amount of jewellery was got enhanced o Rs. 1,96,336/-. On 18-09-2004 both the appellants left in their Maruti-800 from their home at Uttam Nagar for Sai Baba Temple, Najafgarh and Geeta Sharma, one of the appellants, was wearing a number of jewellery including eight bangles, one gold ring, one diamond ring etc. However, for safety purpose they put the entire jewellery in a pouch kept in the bag and the laft the same inside the car to avoid any untoward incident. Within 152-0 minutes when the appellants had come back from the temple, they found that the front door on the left side of the car was open and the outer rubber lining was damaged and on checking they found that the entire jewellery kept in the pouch inside the handbag was stolen. The matter was reported to P.S. Najafgarh vide DD No. 29A on the same day and an FIR No. 542 U/S 379 IPC was registered on 26-09-2004. They informed the insurance company-respondent on 20-09-2004 and an Untraced report was also issued by the police on 13-12-2004. However, the insurance company-respondent failed to pay the claim. Feeling aggrieved the appellants had approached the District Forum for appropriate directions.
3. In their reply the respondent-insurance company contended that the Surveyor had concluded that the claim was not payable for the reasons that the cash flow fo the purchase of jewellery remained unsubstantiated and the fact that the insured was wearing the entire jewellery which was unusual and further that the insured had undone all the jewellery in full public view and reportedly kept them in the glove box which clearly showed that the insured had not exercised basic requirement of insurance, i.e. reasonable care.
4. We have perused the impugned Order closely. The District Forum has observed that in such cases of theft the first natural reaction of a victim is to inform the PCR which the appellant omitted to do and instead preferred a report to the police station.
This was an uncalled for observation. Lodging report with the police was sufficient ground for supporting the version of theft. The other observations made by the District Forum are wholly conjectures and surmises and without any basis. These observations are as under:
We have carefully gone through the report of the Surveyors and from a perusal of the same it is made out that the complainants are residing at Uttam Nagar along with their three children for the last about 8 years. Uttam Nagar is located on Najafgarh Road and on this road itself at a distance of 7-8 Kms Sai Baba Mandir is located.
Obviously, if after visiting the temple, complainants were to go for shopping, there appears to be no logic in complainant No.2 Geeta Sharma wearing all her jewellery. One fails to understand that if all the jewellery was to be taken off her body at the temple and then the couple had to go for shopping, what was the purpose for Smt. Geeta Sharma to wear such a large number of jewellery items on her body. A copy of Registration Certificate of Maruti 800 in which the couple had reached Sai Baba Temple is there on record which shows that the Maruti Car was registered in the year 1991 an the alleged theft took place in the year 2004. In Maruti 800 car of such an old model, it was otherwise too unsafe to put the jewellery inside the Dash board because the gates of such cars can easily be opened as observed by the Surveyors in their report. It was also stated in their letter of repudiation that insured allegedly took off the jewellery in full public view and reportedly kept it in the glove box which clearly shows that the insured had not exercised the basic principle of insurance, i.e. reasonable care.
5. Rather the version of the appellant, as to under what circumstances she had taken out the jewellery and put the same in the car while going to the temple after securing it properly by locking the car, inspires confidence and has an element of spontaneity.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has referred to the Para-3 of the complaint to give the impression that both the versions are contradictory and that on the one hand the appellant states the temple is situated at a lonely place and on the other hand she states that there was suddenly a rush in the temple.
7. In our view the inference being drawn by the counsel is wholly unjustified and uncalled for. It is an individual perspective as to which place one should visit first and which place to go and what to wear while going to which place. Nobody can dictate an individual as to what to do in such circumstances. The only plea the respondent could have taken was whether due care was taken or not which in this case was duly taken as is apparent from the version of the appellant itself. There could not have been a better way of care to be taken to secure the item than what the appellant had done by locking the car properly.
8. We have taken a view that whenever a criminal offence takes place and a report is lodged, the solitary authority to conduct investigations is the police as envisaged by the provisions of Cr.P.C.
Insurance Company cannot order for parallel investigation into the truthfulness or falsehood of the report lodged by a person with the police. If there are circumstances that may show the falsehood of the person, the insurance company can approach the police and bring those circumstances to the notice of the police and if a person is found to have lodged a false report he is liable for prosecution under Sec. 182 IPC. But no way can the insurance company arrogate to itself the legal authority of investigation of criminal offence, which is vested in the police. The Surveyor deputed to assess the claim for the loss, in certain circumstances in which the theft had taken place, may bring the fact to the police, as once the police is seized of the investigation of a criminal case, all other authorities are ousted from the investigation.
9. Reliance placed by the counsel for the respondent on the judgment of National Commission in the case Jagdish Pd Dagar v. Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC 1178 (NS) 1986-94 is highly misplaced in view of our observations:-
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to pay the assessed amount of Rs. 1.29,494/-against the claim filed by the appellants, which was not disputed or contested by the respondent-Insurance Company. We also award Rs. 25,000/- as lump sum compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the appellants and also Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
11. Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
12. A copy of Order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
11. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any, be released under proper receipt.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK