The jewellers took the plea that they had taken out a policy under the Jewellers Block Insurance for the period between August 3, 1993 and August 2, 1994 for the sum of Rs 1.38 crore and had paid Rs 39,446 premium against the same.

It was added in the complaint that on November 2, 1993, they gave six gold bangles worth Rs 35,000 and diamonds worth Rs 19,800 for affixing it in the bangles to a goldsmith. It was, however, added that he never returned and an FIR was lodged with the city police. The police failed to trace him. When all efforts failed the jewellers staked the claim which was repudiated by the insurance company. On the above grounds the complainants asked for Rs 54,800 as compensation for loss suffered.

The counsel for the respondents, however, maintained that loss suffered could not be reimbursed and that the repudiation was in accordance to the conditions of the policy. He also reproduced the said clause which stated that the company shall not be liable in case loss is caused by "any customer.....or cutters or goldsmiths in respect of the property."

After hearing the contentions the Forum observed that the repudiation was "fully covered under clause 8 of the proviso to Section IV of the said policy. We see no reason to find the opposite party guilty of deficiency in services".

Gas agency to pay up for not releasing connection
Taking up a complaint filed here by a Ropar resident, Nirmal Singh, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar, held Amar Gas Service guilty of deficiency in services on account of not issuing a gas connection to the consumer unless he also bought a hot plate from them.

The Forum bench consisting of president N.S. Saini and members Atma Singh and Gurdarshan Narang directed the agency to take back the hot plate in question and refund its cost (Rs 1,450). Apart from this, the bench also ordered the agency to pay Rs 2,000 to the complainant as compensation for harassment caused, along with Rs 500 as costs of proceedings undergone by the complainant.

In his complaint before the Forum, Nirmal Singh stated that he booked a gas connection for himself which was finally issued to him on February 2 this year. He added that the opposite party insisted on the release of gas connection only if the complainant also purchased a hot plate from them. He further stated that when after several visits he was not accommodated, he agreed to buy a hot plate and paid Rs 1,450 for the same.

On the above-stated grounds, the complainant requested the Forum to compensate him to the tune of Rs 10,000 and also to direct the respondent company to pay back the money, along with interest.

The respondents maintained that the complainant had purchased the hot plate on his own sweet will. The complainant, on the other hand, affirmed that he was forced to buy the same.