National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shree Krishna Jewellers vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 20 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2003)CPJ271(NC)
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. It is the complainant who is in appeal before us. His insurance claim regarding burglary in his jewellery shop was repudiated by the respondent-Insurance Company and his complaint was dismissed by the State Commission.
2. Complainant owns a jewellery shop. He got it insured in the sum of Rs. 16.50 lakhs out of which Rs. 15.00 lakhs was towards stock of gold and silver articles and Rs. 1.50 lakhs towards furniture, fittings etc. During the currency of the policy from 23.3.1988 to 22.3.1989 burglary in the shop premises of the complainant took place. First Information Report was also filed with the Police and when the claim was lodged with the Insurance Company it was repudiated on the ground that the insurance pertains to the stock of gold and ornaments kept in the safe while the burglary/ theft took place of the articles kept in the show cases. Reference was made to the insurance policy in which it was mentioned that the insurance pertained to articles kept in the safe and were described as under.
3. Alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed before the State Commission, which as noted above, was dismissed. State Commission left the complainant to go to Civil Court for appropriate relief. There was no evidence on which State Commission could base any relief in its order, Moreover, State Commission was of the view, and rightly so, it was not possible for it to record evidence of each and every individual who had given his ornaments for repairs with the complainant and which were subject matter of burglary/theft. In such a case detailed evidence is required which may not be possible for a Consumer Forum to record in its summary jurisdiction.
4. Aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, this appeal has been filed. Admittedly, it is barred by limitation. To prove sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal it was stated that certified copy of the order of the State Commission was misplaced in the offence of the Advocate and was not readily available. To save limitation appeal was filed with a true copy. There is nothing on the record to show that any certified copy of the impugned order was filed subsequent to the filing of the appeal Though the application is supported by the affidavit of the Advocate himself yet it does not appear to us that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay.
5. Be that as it may, we have also examined the appeal on merit and we agree with the State Commission that in a case like the present one it was more appropriate for the complainant to go to Civil Court. It could not be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company while denying the claim on the ground that the insurance cover was for the ornaments kept in the safe and that the theft took place from the show cases.
6. We would, therefore, dismiss the appeal. However, we record that in case the complainant files suit in a Civil Court he may be entitled to seek exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute., II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583.