M/S. DHARMANANDAN DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
LAWS(NCD)-2020-8-15
NCDRC
Decided on August 28,2020

M/S. Dharmanandan Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.) First Appeal No.12 of 2016 has been filed by the Appellant M/s.Dharmanandan Dismonds Pvt. Ltd. against the order dated 30.10.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint No.40/2007 and First Appeal No.36 of 2016 has been filed by the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 30.10.2015 of the State Commission, Gujarat passed in Complaint No.40/2007.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant M/s.Dharmanandan Dismonds Pvt. Ltd. has given diamonds to one commission agent Mr. Arjanbhai Mangukia to show the diamonds to the prospective buyers by issuing janghad slip on 10.06.2002. However, on 11.06.2002, it was informed by the police that Mr. Arjanbhai Mangukia was murdered and he did not possess the diamonds. On 11.06.2002 the complaint was lodged with the police. On 12.6.2002, the Insurance Company was also informed about the incident. The police did not lodge the FIR and therefore, criminal complaint was lodged with Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The claim for Rs.78,62,388/- was lodged with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.55,19,316/- . The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the following grounds on 19.07.2007:- "1. The absence of safe at the Brokers premises is a breach of warranty material to the loss, as the loss could have been averted had the packets of diamonds been kept in a standard safe. 2. The change of address was not made in the policy. This is crucial for the loss as the entrustment was made from the new address, which was not covered by the policy." "1. The absence of safe at the Brokers premises is a breach of warranty material to the loss, as the loss could have been averted had the packets of diamonds been kept in a standard safe. 2. The change of address was not made in the policy. This is crucial for the loss as the entrustment was made from the new address, which was not covered by the policy."
(3.) The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission being complaint no.40 of 2007. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the same grounds on which the repudiation letter was issued. However, the State Commission allowed the complaint and passed the following order:- "1. Complainant's complaint is partially allowed. 2. Insurance Company is hereby ordered to pay applicant Rs.55,19,316/- i.e. Rs.Fifty five lacs Nineteen thousand three hundred sixteen in words with 9% interest from the date of repudiation. 3. Opponent Insurance Company is also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- towards the cost of complaint." "1. Complainant's complaint is partially allowed. 2. Insurance Company is hereby ordered to pay applicant Rs.55,19,316/- i.e. Rs.Fifty five lacs Nineteen thousand three hundred sixteen in words with 9% interest from the date of repudiation. 3. Opponent Insurance Company is also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- towards the cost of complaint." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.