National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) while addressing the appeal, expressed that:
If the valuation of the lost gold is determined as on the date when reimbursement is made by insurer, it would open Pandora’s box where the beneficiaries of such Policies may seek undue benefit by deliberately delaying reimbursements.
Instant appeal was filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act against the decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Appellant/Complainant was engaged in the business of gold jewellery hallmarking and testing of jewellery, refinery and testing of gold. Appellant took jeweller’s block policy from the respondent/insurance company.
Complainant submitted that while his employee was returning to his shop after collecting jewellery, two unknown persons snatched and fled away with the bag containing jewellery. Thereafter a complaint was filed.
During the course of investigation, appellant filed an insurance claim and further, the appellant was informed that the claim had been repudiated. Aggrieved by the same, a consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission.
Not satisfied with the decision of the State Commission, the complainant filed the instant first appeal.
Analysis, Law and Decision
Commission noted that the Insurance Claim of the appellant was repudiated by the respondents on the ground that the “Cover ceased due to policy terms and conditions”.
The Respondents failed to adduce any evidence in support of their contention that the alleged loss was caused by any of the reasons noted under Exclusion Clause 8 of the Insurance Policy, that there was any fraud/mischief on part of the employee of the Appellant, among others leading to the alleged loss.
Therefore, Commission opined that State Commission rightly dismissed the contention of the Respondents that the Appellant’s claim fell under the Exclusion Clause 8 of the Policy.
Appellant submitted that the value of gold increases day by day and therefore, the State Commission erred in law by disregarding the prayer of the Appellant for a sum of Rs 42,86,293/-. Coram was unable to accept the contention of the Appellant in this regard, since the award of compensation must be restricted to the amount that had been claimed by the Appellant under the Insurance Policy. A perusal of the Insurance Claim form shows that the Appellant had only claimed Rs 25,78,680/- from the Insurance Company.
If valuation of the lost gold is determined as on date when reimbursement is made, it would open a Pandora’s box where the beneficiaries of such Policies may seek undue benefit by deliberately delaying reimbursements.
In view of the above background, appeal was partly allowed. [G.N. Hallmarking & Refinery (P) Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 299, decided on 23-08-2021]
Advocates before the Commission:
For the appellant: Pawan Kumar Ray, Advocate
For the Respondent: Animesh Sinha, Advocate