B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
1. These two appeals bearing No.490/2013 and 877/2013 have been taken up together for disposal as both have arisen out of the common order dated May 24th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short District Forum), Panchkula in complaint No.185/2012.
2. Major General R.D. Mishra (Retd.)-complainant got insured his jewellery and other valuable household articles, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure R1-2/C), with The New India Assurance Company Limited-opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Assurance Company) for the period from June 19th, 2008 to June 18th, 2009. He alongwith his wife had gone to Gwalior on April 6th, 2009.
3. During the intervening night of April 6th/7th, 2009 some unknown persons committed theft in complainants house. One Keshav Nand got lodged F.I.R. No.144 (Annexure C-2) under Sections 457,380 I.P.C., in Sector-5, Panchkula on April 7th, 2009. On receiving intimation, the complainant returned to Panchkula on April 18th, 2009 and submitted list of stolen articles (Annexure C-3) to the police. Intimation was given to the Assurance Company. Police submitted untraced report in the court of Shri Rakesh Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula and vide order (Annexure C-5) dated April 29, 2010 it was filed. Surveyor and Loss Assessor submitted his report (Annexure R1-2/D) dated October 30th, 2009, whereby he assessed complainants loss to the extent of Rs.22,900/- and same was paid to the complainant vide Claim Disbursement Voucher dated July 28th, 2010 (Annexure R1-2/A).
4. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
5. The Assurance Company filed written statement denying the averments made by the complainant.
6. On evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum accepted complaint vide order dated May 24th, 2013 and issued following direction:-
œI. To settle the claim and pay a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- to the complainant in excess of claim already settled on account of stolen of Jewllery items under the head of All risk for Jewellery and Valuables of the policy along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim till its recovery.
II. To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by him as well as cost of litigation.
Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.?
7. In appeal No.490/2013, the Assurance Company has sought setting aside of the impugned order on the ground that the complainant had accepted the amount of Rs.22,900/- without any protest.
8. The complainant in appeal No.877/2013, has sought the enhancement of compensation.
9. Counsel heard. Files perused.
10. The opposite parties, that is, the Assurance Company repudiated complainants claim with respect to jewellery articles drawing an inference that the insured is not expected to leave the jewellery articles at the house in absence while going out station and also that the complainant returned after more than a week of getting information of theft and that even after returning, he took extra ordinary time to prepare the list (Annexure C-3) of jewellery, which he stated to the police to have been stolen.
11. The factum of theft has not been denied by the opposite parties. Even the surveyor has accepted that occurrence of theft is genuine. The contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that the complainant did not take care of the jewellery as the same was left in the house inspite of the fact he was having a locker in the bank, is not tenable because the entire jewellery is always not kept in the locker. More so, the complainant had employed a servant at his house and he was to guard the house in absence.
12. It is established on the record that the policy also covered all the risks for jewellery and valuables to the extent of Rs.1,05,000/-. It is also not disputed that on the date of theft, the complainant alongwith his wife were away to Gwalior and F.I.R. (Annexure C-2) was lodged with the police by neighbourer.
13. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record, this Commission is of the firm view that the impugned order being passed in a perspective manner, requires no interference.
14. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed.
15. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.490/2013, be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
16. This order be attached with appeal No.490/2013 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.877/2013.