2019 (5) TMI 1218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... "NCDRC" by its judgment dated 16 April 2015 reversed the concurrent findings arrived at by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur "District Forum" and by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra "SCDRC". The appellant has a showroom at Solapur in which watches are sold. The appellant had insured its stock of watches with the respondent. During the course of the night on 3 August 2001, after the shop had closed for the day, a theft occurred in the premises. The theft was detected at about 9 A.M. on the next day after the shop opened for business. A First Information Report was lodged with the Police and a claim under the insurance policy was made. The surveyor submitted a preliminary report on 4 Septemb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....members of his family." Construing the above condition, this Court held: "15....we are of the opinion that theft should have been preceded with force or violence as per the terms of insurance policy. In order to substantiate a claim an insurer has to establish that theft or burglary took place preceding with force or violence and if it is not, then the insurance company will be well within their right to repudiate the claim of the insurer." In the present case, the NCDRC in the course of its decision adverted to "clause 8" of the insurance policy which was in the following terms:- "Loss of money and / or other property abstracted from safe following the use of the key to said safe or any duplicate thereof belonging t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court, and hence, the NCDRC was (it was urged) justified in correcting the error having regard to the law laid down by this Court. Learned counsel urged that the appellant has been insuring its goods for nearly ten years and it is improbable that the appellant was not aware of the exclusion. We find from the judgment of the District Forum that it was the specific contention of the appellant that the exclusionary conditions in the policy document had not been communicated by the insurer as a result of which the terms and conditions of the exclusion were never communicated. The fact that there was a contract of insurance is not in dispute and has never been in dispute. The only issue is whether the exclusionary conditions were communicated....