9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exclusion and special conditions to the appellant and hence, they were not binding. When the case traveled to the SCDRC, there was a finding of fact again that the conditions of exclusion were not supplied to the complainant. The NCDRC missed the concurrent findings of both the District Forum and the SCDRC that the terms of exclusion were not made known to the insured. If those conditions were not made known to the insured, as is the concurrent finding, there was no occasion for the NCDRC to render a decision on the effect of such an exclusion - the NCDRC was in error in reversing the decisions of the District Forum and the SCDRC which were grounded on a pure finding of fact that the terms of exclusion were not made known to the insured. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating a loss of approximately ₹ 3,86,395. The surveyor recorded that they were informed by the partner of the firm that the theft may have taken place by utilising duplicate keys. The surveyor, however, found empty watch stands on which the strips of the model numbers were lying behind the counters. There was no sign of forcible entry. This was followed by a surveyor s report dated 30 November 2001. After the claim was repudiated by the insurer, the appellant filed a consumer complaint. By an order dated 26 April 2007, the District Forum allowed the claim in the amount of ₹ 3,04,000. The decision of the District Forum was affirmed, in appeal, by the SCDRC on 19 April 2010. The NCDRC reversed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of money and / or other property abstracted from safe following the use of the key to said safe or any duplicate thereof belonging to the insured unless such key has been obtained by assault or any threat This was in any event not applicable, since the loss was not from a safe. Clause (a) of the policy as extracted in the above judgment reads thus: Any loss of or damage to the property or any part thereof whilst contained in the premises described in the schedule hereto due to Burglary or Housebreaking (theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry to and / or exit from the premises and hold-up Since clause (a) was pari materia with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 to the appellant. The District Forum came to a specific finding of fact that the insurer did not furnish the terms and conditions of the exclusion and special conditions to the appellant and hence, they were not binding. When the case travelled to the SCDRC, there was a finding of fact again that the conditions of exclusion were not supplied to the complainant. Having held this, the SCDRC also came to the conclusion that the exclusion would in any event not be attracted. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
