Satish Sharma Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another - Court Judgment

Dr. P.K. Vasudeva, Member:

1. This appeal has been filed Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 11.5.2000 passed in Complaint Case No. 637 of 1995 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh. Shri Satish Sharma appellant/complainant had purchased a coloured television for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-, German make which was insured from the respondent - United India Insurance Company Ltd. from 9.2.1994 to 9.2.1995 under the House-hold Policy. The television got damaged due to alleged “External Force” and the respondent - Insurance Company repudiated the claim. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant/appellant for the reasons that the loss had not occurred on account of an accident.

2. Briefly, the complainant Shri Satish Sharma s/o Shri Puran Chand Sharma resident of House No. 876, Sector 16, Panchkula purchased German make coloured television for the sum of Rs. 35,000/-. The television was insured under the Household Articles Policy from 9.2.1994 to 9.2.1995 from the respondent -United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 26, Chandigarh and a premium for the sum of Rs. 548/- was paid to the respondent - Insurance Company for insurance policy. The television of the complainant/appellant was damaged on 25.5.1994 while shifting the luggage of his household. The complainant/appellant informed the respondent - Insurance Company about the accident and the claim was lodged with the company. After receiving no reply, the complainant/appellant made repeated requests to the respondent -Insurance Company for the settlement of his claim but the respondent - Insurance Company informed the complainant/appellant that his claim file has been sent to the Regional Office for conidering the matter. On 10.11.1994, the complainant/appellant  submitted the written reply regarding queries to the respondent - Insurance Company for settling his claim but the respondent - Insurance Company failed to settle the claim of the complainant/appellant.  Having left with no other alternative, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 18.5.1995/27.5.1995 through Shri J.D.S. Sarin, Advocate to the respondent - Insurance Company for making the payment of Rs. 43,000/- i.e. Rs. 35,000/- as amount of the television and Rs. 8,400/-  as interest @ 24% per annum alongwith a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for mental agony and mental torture suffered by the complainant/appellant. Copy of the legal notice was sent to the Regional Office and Head Office of the respondent - Insurance Company that was duly received by them. In the meantime, the respondent - Insurance Company appointed Shri S.C. Garg, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the television and raised various queries regarding loss which were replied by the complainant/appellant  as desired by him. After a lapse of 2-3 months of the inspection by Shri S.C. Garg, Surveyor and Loss Assesor, the respondent - Insurance Company again appointed Shri B.K. Sharma, Surveyor for re-inspection of the television but the claim was not settled resulting which the complainant lodged a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh and paryed that the respondent - Insurance Company be burdened with Rs. 3,00,000/- as mental torture and agony suffered by  the  complainant/appellant  plus  Rs.  45,500/- as cost of television and interest @ 24% accrued thereupon. The respondent may further be burdened with Rs. 5,500/- as litigation charges alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from 25.7.1995 till the date of its realization.

3. In reply, the respondents - Insurance Company had admitted the facts regarding the House Hold Insurance Policy annexed with the complaint and attached to Policy No. 110204/48/1/967/94 annexed as Annexure R-1. Para 4 of the complaint had also been admitted by the respondent - Insurance Company to the extent that Shri B.K. Sharma, Surveyor was subsequently appointed for re-inspection of the television and making his report since the investigation done by Shri S.C. Garg was not found to be exhaustive. It was, however, denied that the Surveyor gave an assurance to the complainant/appellant regarding settlement of claim because it was no part of his assignment to give any such assurance. The Competent Authourity after carefully examining the case file and the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, came to the conclusion that since the claim under reference was not based upon any of the named perils mentioned in the Insurance Policy, risk on account of damage caused to the television set of the complainant/appellant in the course of shifting was not covered under the said policy, as such the claim was repudiated by the Competent Authority on 18.4.1995. This fact was orally conveyed soon thereafter by the Sr. Divisional Manager of the respondent -Insurance Company to the complainant/appellant who was working in the same office as Assistant Divisional Manager and still continues as such. The respondent - Insurance Company has denied any deficiency in the services rendered to the complainant/appellant in any manner. The claim lodged by the complainant/appellant was found not to be legally maintainable in view of the specific terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as given in the Section 6(h) (Annexure R-1), of the policy and the claim was validly repudiated by the Competent Authority and no carelessness or negligence can be attributed to the respondents - Insurance Company on any account. It is pertinent here to reproduce Section VI (1)(h) of the said policy, which states as under :

SECTION - VI

TELEVISION SET

The company will indemnify the Insured in respect to—

1. Loss of or damage to television apparatus described in the Schedule whilst contained or fixed in the insured premises by,

(a) fire lightening, explosion of gas in domestic appliances;

(b) bursting and overflowing of water tanks, apparatus or pipes;

(c) aircrafts or articles dropped therefrom;

(d) earthquake, fire and/or shock;

(e) Flood, inundation, typhoon, storm, tempest, hurrican, tornado and cyclone;

(f) riot, strike or malicious act;

(g) burglary and/or house breaking or theft;

(h) accidental external means;

(i) mechanical or electrical breakdown.

Provided that the liability of the company in respect of such loss or “damage in any one period of insurance is limited to the amount specified in the Schedule.”

The claim of the complainant based upon loss due the damages caused to the television set in the course of shifting is covered within the scope of the named perils specified in the above mentioned Insurance Policy.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant  Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate and the learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. V.K. Kapur, Advocate and carefully perusing the order passed by the District Forum and the record of the complaint case, we now proceed to examine the rival contentions of both the parties. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the case of the complainant does not fall within the Clause (h) pertaining to “loss or damage to television apparatus by accidental external means” but the said aspect has been rebutted by the learned Counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company stressing that the present case does fall within the aforesaid clause as the loss had not occurred due to any accidental external means. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the Forum had failed to take into account the condition of Insurance Policy under heading “All  Risks (Jewelry and Valuable) Section - III” under which also the claim of the appellant was fully covered and the Forum ought to have applied above said condition of policy while deciding the complaint.

5. The District Forum has perused the policy and gone into the complete details regarding the claim and counter claim of the appellant/complainant as well as the respondent - Insurance Company and have also examined the authority reported in the case of Devi Dass Gopal Krishen Warehouse v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., III (1996) CPJ 245 wherein the damage had been done on account of landslide where the insured had been reimbursed for the loss covered under Clause (h) but in the instant case, this is neither the natural calamity nor an accident. It is only a case of human error.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the damage to the aforesaid television is due to the human agency and not on account of any accidental “external means”. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges.