National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Brahmdeo Panjiyara on 14 March, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.4271 OF 2007 (From the order dated 27.07.2007 in Appeal No.384/2002 of the State Commission, Bihar) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Petitioners(s) Versus Brahmdeo Panjiyara Respondent(s) BEFORE : HONBLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioners(s) : Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr.Awadhesh Kr.Singh, Advocate Pronounced on 14th March, 2012 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No.384/2002 which was decided in favour of Brahmdeo Panjiyara, Respondent herein, who was the original complainant before the District Forum.
The brief facts of the case are that Respondent was proprietor of M/s B.P. Trading an authorized distributor of Indane Gas and had taken a Multi-Perils Insurance Policy for L.P.Gas (LPG) Dealers from the Petitioner/Insurance Company for an assured sum of Rs.7 lakhs for the cost of cylinders and its contents, Rs.1 lakh against Burglary and/or House Breaking etc. On 04.01.1997, one Binay Kumar Mishra an employee of the Respondent committed theft and took away 224 gas cylinders from the Respondent premises. Respondent lodged an FIR against the said employee and also informed the Petitioner/Insurance Company about this incident. Petitioner appointed a Surveyor on 16.01.1997 to enquire into the incident. The claim was initially treated as closed on the grounds that the Surveyor was not given the necessary documents by the Respondent and thereafter though the Respondent supplied the necessary documents and requested for reopening of his claim, no reply was received from the Petitioner/Insurance Company. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner be directed to pay the Respondent Rs.4,03,200/- being the loss caused to him because of theft of the cylinders @ Rs.1,800/- per cylinder along with litigation costs and other reliefs.
The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner who stated that in the first instance the file had been closed because certain papers asked for from the Respondent were not supplied to its Surveyor and even after the papers were supplied the claim could not be indemnified as per Exception Clause in the insurance policy when an employee of the Insured or member or partner of the Insured or a member of the Insureds family is concerned as principal or accessory in commissioning of the crime. Since admittedly, theft was committed by an employee of the Respondent, the claim was rightly repudiated.
The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.2,01,600/- (@ Rs.900/- per cylinder) along with interest @ 12% per annum after 3 months from the date of filing of the claim till realization and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost. The District Forum further directed that any amount if recovered by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Gas over and above Rs.900/- should be refunded to the Respondent.
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Respondent was never informed by the Petitioner about the policy condition which included the Exception Clause since it was not a part of the main policy supplied by the Petitioner and therefore, Respondent could not be bound by any condition or exception which were not explained or made aware at the time of the parties entering into an insurance contract.
Hence, the present revision petition.
Counsel for both parties made oral submissions.
Counsel for Petitioner reiterated the fact that the entire insurance policy was made available to the Respondent and since it was a contractual agreement, Respondent was bound by it and cannot claim ignorance of its provisions. He further contended that the Exclusion Clause makes it very clear that the claim could not be indemnified if the theft was committed inter alia by an employee of the Respondent which happened in the instant case.
Counsel for Respondent stated that the Fora below which are courts of facts had after considering the evidence on record concluded that only the cover note along with a schedule of the Insurance Policy was supplied to the Respondent and no other part of this document was given to him. Since, as stated above the Exception Clause was not a part of the policy document supplied, Respondent would obviously not be aware of the Exclusion cited by the Petitioner/Insurance Company to repudiate the claim.
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record including the insurance policy document. We note that as pointed out by the State Commission only the cover note along with schedule of policy was supplied to the Respondent and the clause pertaining to Special Exceptions which is in the specimen copy of the insurance policy was not made available to him nor was he apprised about it. Petitioner was unable to provide any document or evidence to controvert this fact. Under these circumstances, we agree with the State Commission that the claim could not be repudiated by the Petitioner by citing the Special Exceptions condition of the insurance policy. We therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the revision petition. Petitioner/Insurance Company is directed to pay the Respondent, Rs.2,01,600/- along with interest @ 10% per annum w.e.f. 26.10.1999 till realization and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
..
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/