State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S World Watch vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 19 January, 2026
CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 05.03.2019
Date of Hearing: 26.09.2025
Date of Decision: 19.01.2026
COMPLAINT NO. 240/2019
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S. WATCH WORLD,
THROUGH
MR. MANISH DHALL,
S/O. MR. MADAN MOHAN DHALL,
R/O. A-69, PRIYADARSHAN VIHAR,
LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI.
PROPRIETOR OF
M/S WATCH WORLD.
(Through: Neeraj Aggarwal, Advocate)
...Complainant
VERSUS
1. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DAB, SCOPE TOWER, 11TH FLOOR,
CORE-2, LAXMI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110092.
THROUGH
THE CHAIRMAN.
(Through: Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Advocate)
...Opposite Party No. 1
2. S. SONI AND COMPANY,
SURVEYORS, LOSS ASSESSORS, INVESTIGATORS,
1047/16, HARI SINGH NALWA STREET,
KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005.
DISMISSED PAGE 1 OF 10
CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Neeraj Agarwal, Counsel for the Complainant, E-mail:
[email protected]
Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Mr. Vishal Agrawal, Counsel for the
Opposite Party No. 1, E-mail: [email protected].
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties and has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) To direct the OP's to pay a sum of Rs25,49,120 (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs fourty nine thousand One hundred twenty only) towards loss of stock due to theft under insurance policy.
b) To direct the OP's to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the above amount w.e.f. 26.3.2017 till date of receiving aforesaid amount.
c) To direct the OP's to pay cost of litigation of Rs 1 lakh to the complaint.
d) To direct the OP's to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) towards compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complaint.
e) To grant any other relief, which the Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are that the Complainant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No. 361701/46/15/75000000068 dated 06.06.2015 from the Opposite Party No. 1, valid for a period of 06.06.2015 to 05.06.2016, with the sum assured value DISMISSED PAGE 2 OF 10 CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026 being Rs. 85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Five Lakh Only). The Complainant paid a premium of Rs. 17,101/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand One-Hundred and One Only) to the Opposite Party No. 1. The said policy insured the Stock/Wrist watches of all companies, Wall Clocks, Time Pieces, and Telephone instruments etc. A theft occurred in the shop of the Complainant on the night of 04.11.2015 to 05.11.2015 and a loss of a denomination of Rs. 25,49,120/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh Forty-Nine Thousand One-Hundred and Twenty Only) was suffered in damages by the Complainant in the said theft. An FIR bearing no. 2583 dated 05.11.2015 was registered immediately against the unknown perpetrator by the father of the Complainant, namely Mr. Madan Mohan Dhall, and intimation of the theft was given to the Opposite Party No. 1 on the same day. The Complainant submitted all documents sought by the surveyor, i.e. the Opposite Party No. 2, namely, M/s. S. Soni and Co. alongwith the untrace report of the police dated 07.03.2016. The Complainant assessed his loss at Rs. 25,49,120/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand One- Hundred and Twenty Only), whereas the Opposite Party No. 2 assessed the loss of the Complainant at Rs. 34,723/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Thousand Seven- Hundred and Twenty-Three Only). The Opposite Party No. 1 repudiated the claim of the Complainant vide letter dated 26.03.2017 stating in that the Complainant has not deposited the required claim documents, and therefore, the amount of Rs. 34,723/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Thousand Seven-Hundred and Twenty-Three Only) has also not been disbursed to the Complainant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Complainant has approached this Commission.
3. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed the Written Statement, denying all the submissions and contentions of the Complainant. It is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1. Further, it is submitted that upon intimation of the alleged DISMISSED PAGE 3 OF 10 CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026 theft, the Opposite Party, in compliance with the policy terms and IRDA regulations, appointed the Opposite Party No. 2, a licensed Independent Surveyor, namely M/s. S. Soni and Company to assess the loss and verify the claim. It is submitted that the claim of the Complainant was repudiated on the basis of the Survey Report dated 21.09.2016 submitted by the Surveyor, who assessed the losses on the basis of documents being provided by the Complainant e.g. list of stolen items, valuation of left over stock, as the Complainant not maintained any stock Register, deploying of security guard in the premises or not installed any CCTV Camera in the premises and also express his inability to provide the list vide their letter dated 03.03.2016 as was asked to substantiate his claim. Further, the Surveyor's detailed report dated 21.09.2016 thoroughly examined all aspects of the loss. It is submitted that on the basis of the documents and information provided by the Complainant, the Opposite Party No. 2 assessed the loss at Rs. 34,723.49 (Rupees Thirty-Four Thousand Seven-Hundred Twenty-Three and Forty-Nine Paise only), holding that the claim as filed was unsustainable and grossly exaggerated. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the failure of the Complainant to submit the documents necessary to substantiate the claim in question, the Opposite Party No. 1 closed the claim and informed the Complainant of the same. Pressing the aforesaid contention and submissions, the counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of the present Complaint.
4. Despite repeated reminders, the Opposite Party No. 2 has failed to file the Written Statement, therefore, the right of the Opposite Party No. 2 to file the Written Statement was closed vide order dated 06.11.2023.
5. The Complainant has filed a Rejoinder rebutting the Written Statement filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 and reiterated the averments made in the Complaint.
DISMISSED PAGE 4 OF 10 CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026
Thereafter, the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1 filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit to prove their averments on record.
6. Written Arguments of the Complainant are on record, wherein the contents of the Complaint have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The counsel for the Complainant has relied on the following judgments in support of their case:
i) Lavlesh Singh vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. as reported in IV (2013) CPJ 398 (NC)
ii) New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Harinder Paul Singh (Since Deceased) as reported in III (2012) CPJ 103 (NC)
iii) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Shilpa Cloth House as reported in IV (2015) CPJ 349
iv) Royal Sundaram Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dr. Mobile & Anr. as reported in IV (2015) CPJ 150 (NC)
v) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Student Boot House & Anr. as reported in II // 12 // (2011) CPJ 136 (NC)
vi) Kum Kum Silk and Sarees vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. as reported in II (2013) CPJ 100 (NC)
vii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dr. M. M. Krishan as reported in (2011) NCJ 445 (NC)
viii) Ramdev Industries vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. as reported in IV (2014) 224 (NC)
ix) National Insurance Limited vs. Hari Om Marketing as reported in IV (2011) CPJ 519 (NC)
x) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. S. S. Textiles as reported in IV (2011) CPJ 276 (NC)
xi) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Somesh Readymade Garments as reported in IV (2011) CPJ 273 (NC)
xii) Padia Exports Private Limited vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in I (2014) CPJ 421 (NC) DISMISSED PAGE 5 OF 10 CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026
xiii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ruchira Papers Limited as reported in I (2014) CPJ 237 (NC)
xiv) Diamond Ply Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. as reported in III (2015) CPJ 528 (NC)
xv) S. M. Jute Pvt. Ltd. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. as reported in IV (2015) CPJ 264 (NC) xvi) Ashish Vishwakarma vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others as reported in II (2012) CPJ 169 (NC) xvii) The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. vs. Shri Bhavanam Srinivas Reddy as reported in 1991 (2) CPR 144 (NC) xviii) The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. vs. Uma Reddy as reported in 1991 (1) CPR 662 (NC) xix) M/s. Harsolia Motors vs. M/s. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. & Ors. as reported in 2005 (1) CPR 1 (NC) xx) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) as reported in 1 SCC 98
7. Written Arguments of the Opposite Party No. 1 are on record, wherein the contents of the Written Statement have been reiterated and the same have been considered. The counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 has relied on the following judgments in support of his case:
i) M/s. Janta Machine Tools vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. (2000) as reported in I (1991) CPJ 508 (NC)
ii) Champalal Verma vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as reported in III (2008) CPJ 93 (NC)
iii) Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd. as reported in III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC)
8. Despite repeated reminders, the Opposite Party No. 2 has failed to file the Written Arguments, therefore, the right of the Opposite Party No. 2 to file the Written Arguments was closed vide order dated 04.09.2024.
9. We have perused the material available on record.
DISMISSED PAGE 6 OF 10 CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026
10.The only question before consideration before us is whether the Opposite Party No. 1 is deficient in providing its services to the Complainant.
11.To deal with this issue, we deem it necessary to refer to Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides as under:
(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
12.The definition of "deficiency" under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 referred to above clarifies that any dereliction with respect to any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in performance required by law in pursuance of a contract of service on the part of the service provider amounts to deficiency in service.
13.On perusal of record, we find that it is not disputed by the parties that the Complainant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No. 361701/46/15/75000000068 dated 06.06.2015 from the Opposite Party No. 1, which remained valid for a period of 06.06.2015 to 05.06.2016, with the sum assured value being Rs. 85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Five Lakh Only).
14.At this juncture, we deem it necessary to refer to Section 18.0 of the Survey Report (annexed as Annexure R-1 on page no. 20 alongwith the Written Statement), which provides as under:
"18.0 Assessment of Loss
- The insured is not maintaining any stock register, hence it is not possible to access the loss based on stock register vs left over stocks.
DISMISSED PAGE 7 OF 10 CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026
- The insured is not provided any list of stolen item to us as well as the police.
- The insured's claim is with out any basis.
- In absence of the stock register, it is not possible to verify the authenticity of the stock statements sent to bank, hence the loss assessment based on the stock statements is not authentic.
- In such circumstance, the only method available for loss assessment as the trading account only."
15.On bare perusal of the abovementioned Section 18.0 of the Survey Report, it is clear that the Complainant failed to maintain a stock register to verify the authenticity of the stock statements. To further strengthen the finding of the Surveyor, we deem it necessary to refer to the Calculation Sheet (annexed as Annexure 2 (Colly) on page no. 33 alongwith the Complaint), which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
16.On bare perusal of the aforesaid Calculation Sheet, we find that the same is merely a list of cost price of stock as per books and there is nothing on record DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 10 CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026 that verifies the stock maintained by the Complainant which was subject to loss by theft dated 04.11.2015.
17.Additionally, we find that the multiple letters sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No. 1 are merely reminders to process the claim of the Complainant, and the same cannot be relied upon for verification of the said claim, and hence, the aforementioned Calculation Sheet annexed by the Complainant is inadequate evidence towards the total loss suffered by the Complainant, as the details leading to the conclusive amount of Rs. 25,49,120/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Forty-Nine Thousand One-Hundred and Twenty Only) are not sufficiently attached therewith. Therefore, the submission of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No. 1 is deficient in providing its services is answered in the negative.
18.Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 in repudiating the claim of the Complainant and the Opposite Party No. 1 is not liable to pay the insurance cover for theft as claimed by the Complainant. Consequently, the present Complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
19.Application(s) pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.
20.A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on https://e-jagriti.gov.in for perusal of the parties. A copy of this order be also sent to the concerned District Commission.
DISMISSED PAGE 9 OF 10 CC/240/2019 M/S. WATCH WORLD VS. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ORS. D.O.D.: 19.01.2026
21.File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On: 19.01.2026 LR-DK DISMISSED PAGE 10 OF 10