The year 2004 was not a good one for Amrit Shah. First his jewellery shop in Zaveri Bazaar was burgled and then his insurance company refused to settle his claims, alleging he had staged the break-in.
But as the adage goes, all good things come to those who wait: Three years after the incident Shah is a relieved man. On November 6, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) ordered the Oriental Insurance Company (OICL) to pay Shah the Rs27 lakh he claimed as insurance, along with an annual six per cent interest rate.
The CDRC passed its ex-parte order in favour of Shah, after OICL representatives failed to show up before the commission — despite notices being issued to the company.
Sometime between April 4 and 5, 2004, Shah’s jewellery shop (Royal Jewellers) in Zaveri Bazaar was broken into, and gold jewellery worth Rs 25.73 lakh and Rs1.27 lakh in cash was stolen. Shah, who was insured with OICL, then claimed Rs27 lakh in insurance. The OICL-appointed surveyor and investigator, however, deemed that Shah has staged the burglary in collusion with his insurance agent, to defraud the insurance company.
OICL then lodged a police complaint against Shah, and two others. They were booked for attempting to cheat OICL. Even as Shah was being tried before the additional chief Metropolitan magistrate at the Esplanade 47th Court, OICL was turning down his request to keep his claims pending until criminal proceedings were concluded.
On August 17, 2005, Shah and the other accused were acquitted. Shah made fresh attempts at pushing his claim with OICL, but they were rebuffed. Eventually in October 2006, Shah moved the CDRC. The CDRC issued notices to OICL on two occasions, but even though OICL received them, the company made no representation.
Shah’s advocate Rajiv Chavan argued that OICL could not be allowed to get off scot-free. Chavan also presented the claim form, Royal Jewellers’ balance sheet and the necessary documents that substantiated Shah’s claims.
The CDRC in its order stated, “The insurance company failed to file a written statement and contest this matter, we have no option but to hold that the OP [OICL] is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.”
The CDRC order also stated that OICL ought to have settled Shah’s claims after his acquittal.
“My business suffered a huge setback, and along with that I had to undergo a lot of mental harassment. The order has been passed but I haveyet to get my money. When we put our faith in an insurance company, the company also should show some faith in the client,” Shah told DNA on Saturday.
Comments