State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Subeg Singh vs Oic on 7 March, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1441 of 2005
Date of institution: 08.11.2005
Date of decision : 07.03.2011
S.Subeg Singh son of S.Darshan Singh resident of 13-C, Maqbool Road, Amritsar.
.....Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.II, Madan Mohan
Malviya Road, Near Art Gallery, Amritsar through its Divisional Manager.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 22.06.2005
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Vikas Sagar, Advocate
For the respondents : Ms.Harsimrat Rai, Advocate for
Ms.V.A.Talwar, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The appellant had taken the insurance policy from the respondents for a sum of Rs.29 lacs for building etc., Rs.50,000/- for televisions etc., Rs.5,35,000/- for jewellery and valuables and Rs.2,13,000/- for electronic goods. It was valid for the period from 4.6.2002 to 3.6.2003. On 15.11.2002, the appellang along with his wife and children went to the market for shopping after locking bed room and main gate. They returned at about 9.30 p.m. They found that the main gate was opened and the door of the bed room was also opened. The articles were lying scattered. On preliminary enquiry, the appellant found that 10 bangles of 15 tolas for Rs.75,000/-, 4 karras weighing 12 tolas for Rs.60,000/-, 3 chains with pendal of 15 tolas for Rs.75,000/- were stolen along with some cash. A watch, cordless phone and two shawls were stolen. The matter was reported to First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 2 the police for which FIR No.303 of 2002 under Sections 457, 380 IPC was registered. Intimation was also given to the respondents.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondents had deputed one Jagir Singh of Batala as investigator. The said investigator was of doubtful background as he was dismissed from government service. The report of the investigator was not given to the appellant but the claim lodged by the appellant with the respondents was repudiated by them vide letter dated 14.3.2003. Hence, the complaint for recovery of the insurance amount of Rs.2,81,700/-. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
3. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant had taken the insurance policy for the items alleged and it was valid for the period from 4.6.2002 to 3.6.2003. On receipt of the information from the appellant, the respondents had appointed the investigator who had recorded the statements of the appellant and of his son and submitted his report. It was admitted that the insurance claim of the appellant was repudiated.
4. It was further pleaded that the alleged theft had taken place on 15.11.2002 but the matter was reported to the police by the appellant on 17.11.2002. The intimation was sent to the respondents on 18.11.2002. The investigator had recorded the statements of the appellant and of his family members and had also made enquiries from the neighbours. The version of the appellant was totally contrary to what was alleged by him.
5. It was also pleaded that the alleged theft was committed by the servant of the appellant himself and it was not covered by the insurance policy. Hence, the repudiation was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of R.K.Dupper, Divisional Manager as Ex.R1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R9.
First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 3
7. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 22.6.2005.
8. Hence, this appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 22.6.2005 be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed with heavy costs.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. The admitted facts are that the appellant had taken the insurance policy from the respondents for the period from 4.6.2002 to 3.6.2003 by which the jewellery and valuable against all risks was covered for an amount of Rs.5,35,000/-. The cover note of the insurance policy has also been proved by the appellant as Ex.C3. It is also proved by the respondents as Ex.R2.
13. It was pleaded by the appellant that the theft had taken place on 15.11.2002 when the appellant alongwith his wife and children had gone to the market and by the time they returned at about 9.30 p.m., the theft had taken place. The matter was reported to the police and a copy of the application filed by the appellant before the police and the proceedings recorded by the police on the application filed by the appellant have been proved as Ex.C5. This report clearly reveals that the complaint was made by the appellant to the police on 17.11.2002. It was made a part of FIR No.303 of 2002 registered on 17.11.2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 IPC at 11.30 a.m. It is, therefore, clearly means that the FIR was got registered by the appellant after the delay of about 36 hours.
14. The appellant has not placed on the file any document to show as to when the appellant had given information about the alleged theft to the respondents. The respondents have placed on the file a copy of the report of Jagir Singh, Chief Executive of the Vigilant Detective Bureau, Batala dated 24.2.2003 First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 4 as Ex.R5, according to which, the intimation was given by the appellant to the respondents on 18.11.2002 and on the same date, the respondents had directed the investigator to investigate into the matter and the investigator had also visited the house of the appellant on 18.11.2002 itself. It means, therefore, that the information was given to the police after about 2 days while the matter was reported to the respondents after about 3 days. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission dated 09.12.2009 passed in First Appeal No.321 of 2005 (New India Assurance Company Limited v. Trilochan Jane). It was held as under : -
"In the case of theft where no bodily injury has been caused to the insured, it is incumbent upon the respondent to inform the Police about the theft immediately, say within 24 hours, otherwise, valuable time would be lost in tracing the vehicle. Similarly, the insurer should also be informed within a day or two so that the insurer can verify as to whether any theft had taken place and also to take immediate steps to get the vehicle traced. The insurer can coordinate and cooperate with the Police to trace the car. Delay in reporting to the insurer about the theft of the car for 9 days, would be a violation of condition of the Policy as it deprives the insures of a valuable right to investigate as to the commission of the theft and to trace/help in tracing the vehicle."
15. If the alleged theft had been a real occurrence, the appellant would not have taken that much delay in reporting the matter to the police or to the respondent insurance company. He would not have slept on the night of 15.11.2002 without reporting the matter to the police and to the respondent insurance company but in the present case, the appellant had caused a long delay. First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 5 Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in Trilochan Jane's case (supra), the appellant is not entitled to any insurance claim.
16. Otherwise also, the appellant has pleaded in the complaint that although the theft had taken place on 15.11.2002 and it was noticed by them at 9.30 p.m. when the appellant and his family members had returned from the market. It is also pleaded by him in para 5 of the complaint that later on, it transpired that the domestic servant in connivance with his colleagues took the benefit of absence of the appellant and broken open the lock and took away the items mentioned above. The matter was reported by the appellant to the police on 17.11.2002. In this complaint (Ex.C5) lodged after about 36 hours, it was nowhere mentioned by him if his servant was involved in this theft. It means, therefore, that the involvement of the servant in the theft came to the notice of the appellant after 17.11.2002.
17. On the other hand, when Jagir Singh investigator visited the house of the appellant on 18.11.2002, he had given a written questionnaire to Varinder Singh Gill son of the appellant. It was duly answered by Varinder Singh Gill with his own hand writing and he had answered the questions. The questionnaire filled by Varinder Singh Gill has been proved by the respondents as Ex.R6. It reads as under : -
"Statement of Sh.Varinder Singh s/o S.Subeg Singh, age 23 years, Jat r/o 13-C, Maqbool Road, Amritsar.
Questionaire Q1. Your Dad S.Subeg Singh has informed the Oriental Ins. Com., Amritsar that theft/burglary occurred into your house in which incident the valuables etc. insured with the said Co. did get stolen. Please explain the history of loss, giving date, month, year, time and relevant circumstances of the occurrence of burglary.First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 6
Ans. The burglary took place in our house on 15.11.2002 noon hours. It was our servant who was employed in our house from 8 to 10 days. He was doing work and we found him missing on that day and after search, we found that some of our valuables were missing from the place where we kept them. Besides this cash was also missing.
Q2. Who notice the occurrence first? Ans. When we found him missing, we were doubtful that the servant had left home after some nefarious motive. Then we checked our belongings. During such check up, our jewellery, cash, cordless phone and some valuable cloths were found stolen. This all occurrence was informed by my parents in the evening after I returned from university.
Q3. What steps had been taken on noticing the occurrence?
Ans. Known to my parents. They did not inform me the steps they have taken.
Q4. Was matter reported to the police? If yes, then state what steps had been taken by the police? Ans. Yes, my father informed the police. The police came and conducted the necessary proceedings. The police did not come in my presence. Q5. Please give details of the stolen goods/valuables. Ans. Details known to my parents.
Q6. If exact detail is not known to you, then please given tentative detail/position of the stolen goods/valuables.First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 7
Ans. As replied in reply to Question No.5, detail of jewellery is not known to me. However, as learnt from my parents, it was approximately 40 to 45 tolas of gold jewellery, cash amount of Rs.20000, one cordless phone and valuable garments.
Q7. Have your parents availed of locker in any bank? Ans. Not known.
Q8. Method used by the culprit for causing the theft. Ans. Not known.
Q9. You have confirmed that the occurrence was caused by your family servant. Please state since when the said servant was working with you? Ans. It was just 8 to 10 days back.
Q10. Name the person who had introduced his servant to your family?
Ans. Known to my dad.
Q11. Give possible identification of the culprit who was your servant. Also given his permanent address, if possible.
Ans. He is tall measuring 6'-1" with fair complexion having small moustaches physically slim aged about 20-23 years. His name was Pramod Kumar as known from him.
Q12. Was entire jewellery lying at one place or at different places?
Ans. Known to my parents.
Q13. Is your father Govt. employee or businessman? Give rank, Deptt's name and station of posting if Govt. First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 8 employee and give address of business, nature of business, if he is a businessman.
Ans. Businessman, shop No.2, Sanjay Gandhi Market, Coal Bagh, AMRITSAR. Transport Business. Q14. Your mother's profession?
Ans. Housewife.
18.11.2002 sd/-Varinder Singh Gill ''
18. According to the version of Varinder Singh Gill, therefore, burglary had taken place on 15.11.2002 at noon hours. It was his servant who was employed by the appellant in his house about 8 to 10 days earlier. He was doing the work and the servant was found missing on that day.
19. It means, therefore, that the involvement of the servant in the theft was known to the appellant immediately after the alleged theft was noticed by him but in the complaint, the appellant has alleged that later on, he had come to know about the involvement of his servant in this theft. Moreover, in the report made by the appellant to the police on 17.11.2002, no reference was made to the involvement of the servant in this alleged theft. This takes away the credibility of the version of the appellant itself.
20. Moreover, as per the version of the appellant in his application dated 17.11.2002 (Ex.C5) to the police, the appellant has alleged that the appellant alongwith his family members had gone in the market for making purchases at about 6.00 p.m. and they had returned by 9.30 p.m. It means that the theft had taken place between 6.00 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. but as per the version of Varinder Singh Gill son of the appellant (Ex.R6), the theft had taken place at noon time. This contradiction in the statements of the appellant and his son about the time of the theft make the things doubtful.
21. The investigator has further reported in his report dated 24.2.2003 Ex.R5 that on 18.11.2002 when he had gone to the house of the appellant, only First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 9 Varinder Singh Gill son of the appellant was present but the investigator had come to know from his son that his mother and father (appellant) were away to Ludhiana and were to return after some days. Thereafter, Jagir Singh investigator visited the house of the appellant for recording his statement on 28.11.2002, 7.12.2002 and 28.12.2002 but the appellant was not available in house. Thereafter, the Investigator visited the house of the appellant on 16.1.2003 when the appellant was found present in his house. The investigator had given the questionnaire to the appellant for filling and signing the same. It was filled by the appellant and duly signed by him. This questionnaire is a part of Ex.R6. In answer to the question as to since when the appellant was availing the household insurance policy, the appellant replied that he had taken the household insurance policy for the first time.
22. In answer to question No.2 as to when the alleged occurrence had taken place, the appellant replied that the theft had taken place in his house on 15.11.2002. He further answered in the questionnaire that his servant who was employed a few days earlier and who told his name as Parmod Kumar son of Ved Ram resident of village Handoli, near Gurgaon had stolen those articles on 15.11.2002 and had absconded. The servant was not found. Even the servant was not traced by going at the place of his residence as was disclosed by him but the whereabouts of the servant were not found. This answer of the appellant, therefore, makes it clear that the alleged involvement of the servant in the alleged theft of gold ornaments was known to the appellant immediately after he had noticed the theft but very surprisingly in the complaint, he has alleged that he had come to know about the involvement of his servant in the alleged theft later on and he even has not mentioned the involvement of his servant in the alleged theft in his application to the police given on 17.11.2002. This also shakes the credibility of the version of the appellant.
23. In answer to question No.4 as to who were present in the house at the time of occurrence, the appellant had reported that his servant was missing First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 10 from 2.00 p.m. onwards who was present in the house and lastly, he was noticed at 12 noon.
24. In answer to question No.6, the appellant has reported that he and his wife have a locker in the PNB in Green Avenue which they were operating for the last 7-8 years. If it was so, then normally the appellant would have kept his gold ornaments in the locker. Although he has pleaded in para 4 of the complaint that on account of festival and marriage season, almost all the gold ornaments were kept in the house for daily use, the appellant has failed to prove as to when the locker was operated by him and when the gold ornaments were brought in his house by him. If the appellant has a locker and if the appellant has taken a specific stand that on account of festival and marriage season when the gold ornaments were kept in the house for daily use, it means, therefore, that earlier to the festival and marriage season, the gold ornaments were kept by the appellant and his wife in the locker but the appellant has failed to produce the bank record to prove as to when the locker was operated by the appellant and when the gold ornaments were brought at home by him. This also shakes the credibility of the version of the appellant.
25. In answer to question No.14 of the questionnaire, the appellant answered that since the servant was a domestic servant, therefore, he opened the Almirah, committed the theft of gold ornaments and other articles and absconded and he had reported the matter to the police. It again means that the appellant had come to know about the involvement of his servant immediately after he had noticed the theft but the involvement of the servant in the theft was not disclosed by him to the police in his application made on 17.11.2002. In answer to question No.17 as to when the matter was reported to the police and what steps were taken by the police, the appellant has answered that on the basis of his statement, the police had reached his house on 16.11.2002 at about 12 noon to 1 p.m. for investigation. This answer again falsify the version of the appellant because the matter was reported to the police by the appellant on 17.11.2002 (Ex.C5) and, First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 11 therefore, there was no possibility of the police having visited the house of the appellant on 16.11.2002.
26. In answer to question No.20, the appellant had reported that immediately after he came to know about the absence of the servant, he checked his cash and gold ornaments and valuable articles and found that the theft had taken place. If it was so, then the entire story of the appellant falls to the ground that they had returned home on 15.11.2002 at 9.30 p.m. and had found the lock broken and the articles lying scattered. In answer to question No.25, the appellant has replied that a few days earlier, a marriage had taken place at Ludhiana and the appellant and his wife had gone to attend the marriage and for this reason, the gold ornaments were brought from the locker. After returning from the marriage, the gold ornaments were not re-deposed in the bank. As discussed above, the appellant has not proved any record about the locker operation. Therefore, this story is uneblieveable. The said questionnaire is signed by Subeg Singh appellant on 16.1.2003 and it is duly signed by Jagir Kaur wife of the appellant.
27. As discussed above, the statement of Varinder Singh Gill son of the appellant is different. The version of the appellant in the complaint is different and the version of the appellant in the questionnaire dated 16.1.2003 Ex.R6 is different. Therefore, the alleged theft is totally unbelieveable. The investigator has also reported that he had made secret enquiries in vicinity of the appellant on 18.11.2002, 28.12.2002 and 16.1.2003 but no one was aware about the alleged burglary in the house of the appellant. Rather the people got surprised to hear the said news from the investigator. Jagir Singh investigator in his report dated 24.2.2003 (Ex.R5) recorded the conclusion as under : -
"CONCLUSION:
In the light of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the alleged story of theft of jewellery and cash & valuables is merely a cock and bull story as it was reported to the police in some different way First Appeal No.1441 of 2005 12 whereas during investigations it is introduced in some different way. The theft by servant is not covered/admissible under the policy. The insured, his son and his neighbour have corroborated that the theft had been committed by the domestic servant of the insured, hence liability of the Insurance company does not exist at all. Above all, the items of jewellery allegedly stolen, do not stand covered in the policy. It is, thus, recommended that the instant claim is not maintainable which may please be filed as 'NO CLAIM' in the interest of fair play and justice."
28. From all these circumstances, we reach the conclusion that not only the matter was reported to the police with long delay but the version of the appellant itself is unworthy of belief. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 22.6.2005.
29. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
30. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 24.2.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
31. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER March 07, 2011.
Paritosh