K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The complainant died pending appeal and his legal representatives have come on record as appellants 2 to 4. The case in the complaint was as follows:- (a) The complainant a pensioner had taken a house holder's insurance policy with the opposite party which was in force from 21/06/96. It covered jewellery upto Rs.20,000/-. The complainant insisted for insurance of the entire jewellery. But the opposite party had informed him that the insurance for jewellery under house holder's insurance scheme could not exceed Rs.20,000/-. The said policy covered 5 sovereign gold chain described as Thali chain in the list of items covered. On 26/11/98, the complainant's house was burgled and FIR was lodged at Valasaravakkam Police Station. The chain owned by the complainant's wife described as Thali chain in the description of property forming part of the policy was stolen. The said gold chain weighed 34.56 grams excluding the Thirumangalyam and silver string. The total chain weight including the Thirumangalyam and silver string was 40 grams. The complainant had preferred a claim to the opposite party on 14/12/98 having communicated the theft earlier on 27/11/98. The opposite party without any basis rejected the claim stating that only Thali chain was included in the list of items covered and the description of the same in the FIR was chain which was stolen which did not form part of the policy. The complainant's wife used to wear the said chain stolen only when she used to go out and on other occasions, she had another Thirumangalya Charadu which weighed 47.510 grams which was never sought to be insured or was insured with the opposite party. As directed by the opposite party, the complainant obtained a non-traceable certificate from the police and furnished the same to the opposite party. The opposite party not having honoured the claim, the complaint came to be filed.
(2.) The opposite party took a stand that the policy covered only Thali chain weighing 5 sovereigns and not a mere gold chain. The jewel as reflected in the policy was only the Thali chain. According to the FIR given by the complainant, the stolen article was described as the chain weighing 4 sovereigns, bangles weighing 3 sovereigns cash Rs.640/- and a silver dollar. Thus, immediately after the theft came to the knowledge of the complainant, he was in a position to identify the stolen article as reflected in the FIR. Even in the letter dt.01/12/98 to the surveyor appointed by the opposite party the complainant had said that a gold chain weighing 4 sovereigns had been lost but the word Thali was inserted. The stolen article was not covered by the policy. The claim had been rightly rejected. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs.A1 to A9 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs.B1 to B9 were marked.;