State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd. ... vs 1.Sanjeev Aggarwal Son Of Rajeshwar ... on 12 March, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.743 of 2006 Date of Institution: 17.03.2006 Date of Decision: 12.03.2012 National Insurance company Ltd. Regional office II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through P. Bhatia, Admn. Officer. Appellant (OP) Versus 1. Sanjeev Aggarwal son of Rajeshwar Parkash, r/o House No.6-7, Professor Colony, Near Ambay Gas Godown, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Premsons Power System, 49 Shivaji Park Op. UCO Bank near Pyara Chowk, Yamuna Nagar. ---Respondent (OP-1) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Parties: Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Advocate for appellant. Respondents exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 06.02.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri in complaint No.655 of 2005 whereby following relief was granted to the respondent No.1 (complainant) for loss of the mobile set:-
..we allow the complaint of the complainant by directing the respondents to pay the claim amount i.e. Rs.4950/- as insured amount along with 12% p.a. interest from the date after three months from lodging the claim till its realization. Further respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment as well as cost of proceedings.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the complainant had purchased one Mobile Hand set make Nokia 1100 vide bill No.35 dated 16.3.2004 from the opposite party No.1 which was insured with the appellant-opposite party No.1, as per insurance cover note provided to the complainant. The above said mobile set was misplaced/lost by the complainant in the area of Yamuna Nagar for which D.D.R. No.17 dated 30.4.2004 was lodged. Claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party (appellant) on the ground that complainants claim was not covered under the policy. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint, which on having been contested by the opposite parties on the above stated ground, was accepted by granting relief as noticed in the opening para of this order. Hence, this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
On behalf of the appellant it has been argued that as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the loss of the mobile set as stated by the complainant in the D.D.R. was not covered and for that reason nothing is payable by the appellant to the complainant. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards the policy conditions Annexure A-II.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, we are of the view that complainants claim is not covered under the Insurance Policy issued by the appellant-opposite party because only theft claim of mobile set was covered under the policy but it is case of the complainant that he lost his mobile in the area of Yamuna Nagar.
By now it is well settled law that no relief can be granted beyond the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Reference in this regard is made to case law cited as SURAJ MAL RAM NIWAS OIL MILLS (P) LTD. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY & ANR, IV(2010) CPJ 38 (S.C.) wherein Honble Supreme Court has held as under:-
22. Before embarking on an examination of the correctness of the grounds of repudiation of the policy, it would be apposite to examine the nature of a contract of insurance. It is trite that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the terms of the said contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed, and no exception can be made on the ground of equity.
24. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount important, and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risk covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.
The instant case is fully covered by SURAJ MAL RAM NIWAS OIL MILLS (P) LTDs case (Supra). Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any insurable benefits. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts, hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
In view of the above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.3452/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 12.03.2012 President Diwan Singh Chauhan Member