National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ms. Mohini on 2 February, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1254 OF 2006 (From the order dated 10.05.2006 in First Appeal No. 409/2006 of the State Commission, DELHI) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...... Petitioner (s) DRO-I, JEEVAN BHARTI TOWER-II LEVEL IV, 124, CONNAUGHT CORNER NEW DELHI. Vs. MS. MOHINI A-3-340, PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI .Respondent (s) BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. S.D. WADHWA, ADVOCATE For the Respondent: IN PERSON Dated : 02.02.2010 ORDER
JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH The respondent who is a lawyer by profession lost her insured mobile telephone Nokia No. 3315 purchased from M/s. M. Square, opp.party No. 2, when some one snatched her purse from her hand and whisked away, while she was on way to court room. Since mobile set was insured with petitioner Corporation, she lodged her claim with said insurance company, also lodging a criminal case with police for loss of mobile set.
Documents required by insurance company to process claim was also made available by her to Corporation. As she could not get desired result, she moved District Forum filing a complaint. Opp.party No. 2, however, did not choose to contest the proceeding. Claim of respondent was, however, resisted by insurance company on premises that there being no evidence for forced and violent entry and exit, claim of respondent was not covered under terms and conditions, as per stipulations made in clause 1B (c) of insurance policy. District Forum, however, having over-ruled contentions raised on behalf of petitioner Corporation also holding that there was no evidence about respondent having been supplied with copy of policy containing exclusion clause while accepting claim, directed insurance company to indemnify loss of mobile set which was of value of Rs. 3,750/-. District Forum also saddled insurance company with compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony suffered by respondent. Litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- too, was awarded. Appeal too, preferred by insurance company before State Commission did not bear desired result, as appeal was dismissed, deleting quantum of compensation awarded by District Forum from award.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Corporation took strong exception to certain observations made by State Commission holding incorporation of certain conditions in policy to be illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable. Reliance was placed on decision of Honble Apex court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal
- (2005) ACJ 570 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Sony Cheriyan (1999) 6 SCC 451.
Referring to one of exclusion clauses which stipulates that theft of Handset from any property or premises unless such theft has occurred through forced and violent entry or exit, learned counsel for petitioner Corporation with all vehemence, would stress that there being no element of forced and violent entry, claim of respondent would be hit by exclusion clause rendering claim not maintainable. Explicit assertion made by respondent for loss of mobile set was that while she was on way to court room, some one having snatched away her purse, whisked away. Since theft of mobile set was committed by an unidentified person from her custody, removal of mobile set has an element of violence or force. It is not a case where some one removed object from ones custody without his or her knowledge. Since respondent does not press about petitioner company having not supplied policy document containing exclusion clause, we refrain to make any comment on this aspect of the issue. As for observations made by State Commission, time and again, courts have cautioned, as was laid down by Honble Apex court in case of General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain & Anr. (1966) ACJ 267 SC :
in interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the Court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the Court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.
it needs no repetition that terms of agreement have to be strictly construed to determine extent of liability of parties. We are told by learned counsel for petitioner, which is also acknowledged by respondent that insurance company has already paid Rs. 3,000/- to her, in terms of direction of this Commission. If this be so, while affirming conclusive finding of State Commission, we direct insurance company to pay residual amount of Rs. 750/- to respondent. Respondent submits that she is only concerned with value of mobile set, loss of which was required to be indemnified to her by insurance company and for rest part of award, she does not wish to pursue the matter. We, accordingly, restrict to basic award and order of State Commission is modified to this extent only. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed, with aforesaid modification.
J (B.N.P. SINGH) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Dd/20