Award Dated 14.12.2004Shri Bahadur B Dangor lodged a claim with National Insurance Company Limited, PuneD.O. III for theft of jewellery and belong<strong>in</strong>gs under his Householder’s <strong>Policy</strong> No. 271500 /48 / 32 / 3601049 / 99 dur<strong>in</strong>g journey by tra<strong>in</strong> 2859 Mumbai Howrah Geetanjali Express on23 / 24.3.2000 between 11.30 p.m. and 7.15 a.m. The <strong>co</strong>mpla<strong>in</strong>t was lodged with HowrahGovernment Railway Police and some follow up was done by National Insurance CompanyLimited through <strong>co</strong>rrespondence with GRP Howrah, their own Divisional Office <strong>in</strong> Kolkata.While this Forum is not aware of the f<strong>in</strong>al out<strong>co</strong>me, it appears from the Compla<strong>in</strong>ant’s letterdated 15. 1.2004 issued to this Forum, that the case may have been closed by National asclaim not documented or the matter not responded by the Railway Police or so. As per Rule13(3)(b) of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules,1998 “ No <strong>co</strong>mpla<strong>in</strong>t to theOmbudsman shall lie unless the Compla<strong>in</strong>t is made not later than one year after the <strong>in</strong>surerhad rejected the representation or sent his f<strong>in</strong>al reply on the representation of theCompla<strong>in</strong>ant “. Hence this Forum cannot enterta<strong>in</strong> cases beyond one year from the date ofrejection by the Company and this matter perta<strong>in</strong> to the year 2000. In the facts andcircumstances the <strong>co</strong>mpla<strong>in</strong>t of Shri Bahadur B Dangor for claim under <strong>Policy</strong> No.271500 /48 / 32 / 3601049 / 99 for alleged loss of Jewellery is dismissed from this Forum withoutgo<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to the merit of the same and as per provisions of the Redressal of Public GrievanceRules, 1998Mumbai Ombudsman CentreCase No. GI - 555 of 2003-2004Shri Visanji Khetshi ShahVs.Tata AIG <strong>General</strong> Insurance Co. Ltd.Award Dated 23.12.2004Shri Visanji Khetshi Shah, had taken a Travel Global Protection <strong>Policy</strong> from Tata AIG<strong>General</strong> Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai under Schedule on WA-3A279747 for a durationof 60 days from July 9,2003 to September 6,2003. Shri Visanji, <strong>in</strong>timated to the call centreof Company on 8th September, 2003 <strong>in</strong>form<strong>in</strong>g that few articles were found miss<strong>in</strong>g fromhis baggage delivered to the him by the British Airways dur<strong>in</strong>g his journey on 6.9.2003 fromLondon to India.The <strong>co</strong>mpany vide letter dated 11.9.2003 <strong>in</strong>formed Shri Visanji Khetshi Shah, that theTravel Insurance policy provides Coverage for total loss of baggage whilst <strong>in</strong> custody of<strong>co</strong>mmon carrier only and not damaged to the luggage or partial loss of its <strong>co</strong>ntents. Hence,they regretted their liability to pay the claim subject to the terms and <strong>co</strong>nditions it thepolicy schedule. Aggrieved by the decision of the <strong>co</strong>mpany, the Insured represented to theCompany vide letter dated 17.9.2003 stat<strong>in</strong>g that the Airport Authorities do not allow thepassengers to lock the baggage for check<strong>in</strong>g explosive articles <strong>co</strong>nta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the baggage,and the airport authorities break the lock if the baggage is locked for check<strong>in</strong>g thebaggage. Not satisfied with the response he approached the Insurance Ombudsman on 5thDecember, 2003 seek<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tervention <strong>in</strong> the matter of settlement of his claim. A hear<strong>in</strong>gwas held on 14th December, 2004 and Shri Visanji Khetshi Shah, Compla<strong>in</strong>ant, appearedand deposed before the ombudsmen. The Company was unrepresented and when<strong>co</strong>ntacted over phone, they submitted that the <strong>co</strong>ncerned person was not available forwhich they wanted postponement of the hear<strong>in</strong>g which was rejected. However, the<strong>co</strong>mpany’s submission dated 13.2.2004 with the self <strong>co</strong>nta<strong>in</strong>ed note, <strong>co</strong>pies of proposalform and the Travel Guard policy have been received, which are taken on re<strong>co</strong>rd at thishear<strong>in</strong>g. All these provided good for issu<strong>in</strong>g this Award to avoid further delay.The Insured was carry<strong>in</strong>g valuable items <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g jewellery <strong>in</strong> a ladies bag which was keptunlocked. In the defence, he mentioned that because of frequent check<strong>in</strong>gs at variousairports, which totally disrupts the baggages, he <strong>co</strong>nsidered it proper not to lock thebaggage until those were checked. Moreover, the Airport authorities often get wild if there
was delay <strong>in</strong> open<strong>in</strong>g bags for check<strong>in</strong>g. This argument is unacceptable <strong>in</strong> the light ofpractical situation. The Insured is supposed to take care of the goods <strong>co</strong>vered under theInsurance <strong>Policy</strong> with due care for their safety and security. The card<strong>in</strong>al Pr<strong>in</strong>ciple ofInsurance is to behave ‘as if un<strong>in</strong>sured’. The other important po<strong>in</strong>t, is that any policyoperates with<strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> terms and <strong>co</strong>nditions and violat<strong>in</strong>g those would make the claimsubstantiated and non-payable. Ac<strong>co</strong>rd<strong>in</strong>gly on the basis of the Documents producedbefore this forum, it is apparent that the loss is not susta<strong>in</strong>able under the s<strong>co</strong>pe of thepolicy and the terms of the particular clause <strong>in</strong><strong>co</strong>rporated under the policy documents.
Change language