National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Anjaneya Jewellery vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & 2 Ors. on 22 May, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 1094 OF 2018 1. M/S. ANJANEYA JEWELLERY ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 ORS. ...........Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Complainant : Ms. Vaishnavi, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Dated : 22 May 2018 ORDER JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainant obtained a package insurance policy from the OP in respect of the articles of jewellery which it wanted to exhibit overseas. The case of the complainant is that on 26.07.2015, after the exhibition held by them at Dallas had closed, three out of four suitcases containing the jewellery were kept in a rented car which was duly locked and was parked before an apartment. The jewellery is alleged to have been stolen from the aforesaid car. A claim was lodged with the OP for re-imbursement in terms of the insurance policy taken by the complainant. The claim was rejected vide letter dated 30.09.2016 which, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
With reference to the above, we have received a claim intimation mail dated 27.07.2015, duly informing that the theft claim happened while jewellery was taken to USA for exhibition cum sale on 26.07.2015.
Out of 04 suitcases containing gold jewellery, 03 suitcases were stolen while they were placed in a rental car parked in front of the insured's cousin's apartment located at 663E Royal Ln Irving TX, USA.
As per the report of the surveyor, M/s Cunningham & Lindsey International Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, it is found that the rented car was parked in front of the insured's cousin apartment wherein four suitcases containing gold jewellery were kept in the car i.e., left unattended when the reported incident happened.
As per the policy conditions, The coverage against burglary/theft is excluded from the loss from unattended vehicles/places.
Policy contains another special condition that "beyond the hours of the client visits, the jewellery to be kept in a safe of standard type vault and guarded by armed security person round the clock i.e., 24 hours".
In this regard, the investigation report clearly states that the armed security arrangement was only upto the exhibition venue and not off premises.
No further security arrangements were made by the insured during their travel to cousin's residence and thereafter.
Hence jewellery kept in the suit cases, lying in the trunk of the vehicle was not protected as mentioned under the policy condition.
Basing on the policy conditions and as per the surveyor's recommendation, we hereby conclude that the liability does not exist on our part and the claim is closed as no claim.
2. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this consumer complaint.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that only a two page policy schedule (available on page no. 42 & 43 of the paper-book) was provided to them by the insurer and therefore, the complainant was never aware of the terms and conditions/exclusions on the basis of which the claim has been repudiated. On being asked as to how the policy schedule available on page no.42-43 of the paper-book was received by the complainant, the learned counsel submits that the same was left in the office of the complainant without any forwarding letter and without any acknowledgment being taken. A perusal of the aforesaid policy schedule clearly shows that the policy was subject to package insurance policy clauses attached therewith. This would mean that the policy clauses were actually attached to the aforesaid policy schedule. If the said clauses were not attached thereto, as is claimed by the complainant, it either ought not to have accepted the policy schedule or it ought to have at least immediately written a letter to the insurer stating therein that no policy clauses were attached to the policy schedule received by them. It is unnatural for a person obtaining such a policy to remain silent on receiving the policy schedule without policy clauses when the policy schedule expressly states that the said clauses were attached thereto. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention that the policy clauses were not attached to the policy schedule received by the complainant.
4. One of the exclusion contained in the policy excluded burglary/theft from unattended vehicles or places. It is an admitted position that the vehicle in which the suitcases containing jewellery was parked unattended and unguarded by armed security person at the time the theft took place, though the case of the complainant is that the aforesaid period was only one hour. Even if the said period was only one hour, that would be of no consequence since the vehicle was unattended at the time the theft took place. The second policy condition required the insurer to keep the jewellery in a safe of standard type vault and guarded by armed security person round the clock i.e. 24 hours, beyond the hours of the client visits. Admittedly, it was after closure of the visiting hours of the clients that the jewellery was allegedly kept in the car parking outside the apartment. The complainant therefore, contravened also the above referred condition of the insurance policy by not keeping the jewellery in a safe of standard type vault and guarded by armed security person round the clock.
5. The investigator Mr. James Luker had the following say with respect to the alleged theft:
"I find it odd and unreasonable that the victims left the suite cases that contained the jewellery in the vehicle, even for 1 minute let alone an hour as the original report explains. It's uncharacteristic of them to do so considering the precaution they took during the event and afterwards, which is explained above and subsequently raises my suspicion, as I cannot rationalize that any of the victims would ever think that leaving 1.3 million dollars' worth of jewellery inside an unoccupied vehicle is a good idea at any time or anywhere."
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant had proposed to take a Special Contingency Insurance Policy and the information available on the website does not contain the conditions on the basis of which the claim had been repudiated and even the policy provided to the complainant was different from the policy which it wanted to take. If this is so, the complainant ought to have rejected the policy schedule immediately after it was received by it. The failure of the complainant to take any such step clearly indicates that the plea taken by it is just an after-thought in order to support the claim. No reliance on the said plea therefore, can be placed.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the repudiation of the claim, in my view, cannot be faulted with. The complaint, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER