DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -ooOoo-

C.D.CASE NO.303/ 2019

Mahendra Kumar Samantary, aged about 57 years,

S/o – Late Bhramarbar Samantaray, R/O – Palla,

PO – Pallahat, PS- Khurda, Dist – Khurda- 752056

                                                                             ….     Complainant

                -Vrs.-

1. S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer,

SBI General, At – Sbi General Insurance Co. Ltd.

101, 201 & 301, Natraj, Junction of Western Express

Highway &AndheriRoad, Andheri (East),

Mumbai – 400069.

2. Regional Claims Manager, S.B.I. General Insurance

Company Ltd., 4^th Floor, “B”Block, Apeejay House,

15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700016,

3. Branch Manager,

S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar Branch,

191, Kharvela Nagar, Unit – III,

(Adjacent to Exhibition Ground), Bhubaneswar,

Dist – Khurda, Odisha – 751001

4. State Bank of India,  through its Branch Manager.

Channagiri, Sub Branch, Channagiri, Khurda

Odisha - 752020

5. Regional Manager,

State Bank of India, RBO-1, 3^rd Floor,

Administrative office Building, Near Capital Police Station,

Bhubaneswar – 751009, Dist - Khurda

                                                                    ….     Opp. Parties

For the complainant      :         Sri P.Varma  & Associates (Adv.)

For the O.Ps. 4 & 5       :         Sri A.B.Majhi &  Associates (Adv.)

For the OPs 1 to 3                   :         Mr. G.P.Dutta & Associates (Adv.)

DATE OF FILING         :         22/10/2019

DATE OF ORDER        :         16/02/2023

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.       This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that,  he is the owner of petrol pump. He had insured his petrol pump with OPs 1 to 3  under the policy  called “SME PACKAGE INSURANCE”. He was assured that his business was fully covered under the General Insurance provided by the  Financier  Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Channagiri Branch. The insurance was valid from 19/07/2018 to 18/07/2019.  It so happened, on 11/03/2019, one of the employees of the complainant was carrying Rs.3,00,000/- to the State Bank of India, Channagiri branch and on the way, he was robbed by some anti-socials. He laid  his insurance claim before the OPs 1 to 3 but his claim was  repudiated on the ground that, cash  in transit was not insured and the expression “cash in transit”  is not covered  under Fire & Burglary section. On being aggrieved by the rebuttal of the claim by the OPs 1 to 3, this complaint has been filed.

3.       On the other hand, the  OPs 1 to 3   filed written version  contending therein that,  the complainant is the policy holder of the policy bearing number 6697397-01 (SME Package Insurance policy)  for the period between 19/07/2018 to 18/07/2019. It has also been pleaded by the OPs 1 to 3 that, when the complainant laid his claim before them, they deputed one surveyor who submitted his report stating therein that, the loss  suffered by the complainant was not covered under the terms & conditions of the existing policy which is only for stocks (Fire and Allied Perils Insurance)  and contents & stocks (Burglary Insurance). The insurance policy so issued to the complainant did not cover loss of cash in transit. As the complainant has no merit in his claim,  the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

          So far as the OPs 4 & 5 are concerned,  the advocate for the OPs 4 & 5 remained present during the course of hearing of the case before the Commission but they had not filed any written version in this case.

4        Perused the materials on record.  Admittedly,  the complainant had  insured his petrol pump with the OP.3.  On perusal of copy of the insurance policy, it appears that it covers stocks and other allied matters but the policy does not cover the loss of cash in transit. Since the loss suffered by the complainant was due to loss of cash in transit, his claim before the Insurance Company for compensation is not justified. Considering the totality of the circumstances,  allegations and counter allegations raised by both parties, I find that the complaint   bears no merit.  Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  hereby  dismissed on contest  against the OPs    being devoid of merit.

The order is pronounced on this day the   16^th  February,  2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W)   of the Commission.

                                                                             (K.C.RATH)             

                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 Dictated & corrected by me

          President                                                                                    

I agree                                                                            

(S.Tripathy)                                                                           

Member (W)                                                                             

Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno