Date of Filing: 15.04.2019
Date of Order: 24.03.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Wednesday the 24th day of March, 2021
C.C.No. 152 of 2019
Between
Autofin Ltd, MCH 3-6-729, Main Road,
St.No. 12, Himayath Nagar , Hyderabad,
Telanagna – 500029.
Rep. by its Accounts Manager – Mr.K. PRabhakar Reddy.
….Complainant
And
- The Branch Manager,
Future Generali India Insurance Co.Ltd,
7-1-21A, APDL Estate , 1st Floor,
Opp: Country Club, Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500 016, India.
- Future Generali Indian Insuranec Co. Ltd,
Authorized Officer, Indiabulls finance Centre, Tower -3,
6th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Elphinstone (W), Mumbai – 400 013, India.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : M/s. S. Maruthi Rao
Counsel for the Opposite party No.1&2 : M/s Syed Moinuddin
O R D E R
(By Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)on behalf of the Bench)
The case of the complainant in brief :
1. The present complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 7,08,822/- along with interest
from 11.02.2018 and to award costs of this complaint to pass such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. BREIF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT:
The complainant herein is a company having Honda Motorcycle showroom, sales and servicing/workshop/Go-down and are having several branches in Hyderabad. On 30-04-2017, the complainant has taken several insurances policies namely business Surakha Insurance Policy, vide Policy No.2017-F0353003-BSS, dated 30-04-2017 paid a sum of Rs.3,777/-, Standard fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy, vide policy No.2017-F0353005-FRE, dated 30-04-2017 paid a sum of Rs.36,876/-, Burglary (House Breaking) Insurance Policy vide Policy No.2017-B0062746-FBG dated 30-04-2017, paid a sum of Rs.8,050/- and future Money insurance policy vide policy No.2017-M0504314-FMY dated 30-04-2017, paid sum of Rs.1,350/- from the opposite party through their intermediary “KADEL INSURANCE BROKERS PVT LTD/60001288” for the insured amount of Rs.30,50,000/-, Rs.70,000,000/-, Rs. 70,000,000/- and Rs.90,00,000/- and the policy property is situated at 11-5-131/3, Red Hill, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana, insuring all the products including stock, furniture and machinery with the opposite party company. While the said policies was in subsistence, on 11-12-2018 there was a fire accident occurred in the premises of
showroom 11-5-131/3 Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad and the entire showroom was burnt including furniture, office equipment, computers, physical cash, table etc., and the complainant incurred huge loss. As such, the complainant approached the opposite party in Hyderabad and made a claim under all insurance policies claiming amounts including an amount of Rs.7,08,822/- towards loss of physical cash present in the showroom’s safe at the time of fire accident. Basing on which, the opposite party has appointed one surveyor M/s. AUM Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors for verification of damage caused due to fire accident. The said surveyor has verified the safe in which the cash was destroyed and got it opened by the Godrej Company technician and found that the notes were soiled and damaged and gave a report basing on which, the opposite party has to pay the claim amounts but instead the opposite parties repudiated the claim stating “as per the policy wordings of 1.2, the insurers will indemnify the insured for the loss of money from a safe and/or strong room in the premises if it is caused due to Burglary and Robbery and not due to the loss of money caused due to fire.
The complainant was surprised with the rejection and approached the opposite party’s company but there was no proper reply from them. He then issued a legal notice dated 20-02-2019 to the opposite party and mentioned that as per the policy issued to the complainant dated 13-05-2017, the policy covers loss of money to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for the fire accident which took placed at the location mentioned in the policy and the event covers as per the policy
issued to him but the operative part mentioned by the opposite party shows that his claim does not cover under the policy issued to him. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Version of the opposite party No.1 and 2:
The opposite party No.1 and 2 contented that the averments mentioned in the complaint do not constitute complaint within the meaning of Consumer Protection (C.P) Act and the complaint lacks necessary ingredients as per Sec 2 (c) of C.P. Act, 1986, The opposite party No. 1 and 2 also submitted that the complainant has taken Business Suraksha Policy, Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy, Burglary (House breaking) Insurance Policy and future money insurance policy from 1st opposite party through Kadel Insurance Brokers Private Ltd., and the very grievance of the complainant pertains to future money insurance policy. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 submitted that there was a fire accident in the premises at 11-5-131/3, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad on 11-02-2018 and on submission of claim, the opposite party No. 1 and 2 settled and paid the claim under the two (2) policies which covered the stocks and show room but the risk under the money policy was not covered under the said policy. As such, the grievances of the complainant pertains to future money insurance under which , the sum insured for Begumbazar location was Rs.10,00,000/- and according to the investigation report from the surveyor, the opposite party No.1 found that the cash in the safe custody was gutted completely due to the fire accident. But according to the conditions of the policy, the claim will be payable if the loss is caused due to Robbery, theft, Burglary, House breaking. Clause 1 of the operative part, the policy reads as under:-
The company will indemnify the insured:
- Up to the limit of indemnity specified in the schedule for the loss in transit of Money whilst carried by the insured or its authorized Employee, caused by Robbery, Theft or any other fortuitous event and or
- Up to the limit of indemnity specified in the schedule for the loss of Money from a safe and or strong room in the premises mentioned in the schedule caused by Burglary or Robbery.
- Up to the limit of indemnity specified in the schedule for the loss of Money from the insured’s cash counter in the premises mentioned in the schedule during the office hours caused by Housebreaking or Robbery.
According to the complainant, the money in the safe was gutted due to fire accident that occurred in the showroom. The opposite party No.1 found that loss was not covered and the claim was not payable under the above clause and informed the same to the complainant through letter dated 01-10-2018 mentioning the reason as well as conditions of policy.
The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant knowing well that the nature of loss was not covered under the policy and the claim was not payable, he filed a false complaint to mislead this Commission and also to cause wrongful loss to the opposite parties as well, as such they prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.
4. In the course of enquiry, the complainant has filed evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complainant and got marked exhibits Ex.A1 to A7. The opposite parties also filed their evidence affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to
Ex.B3 documents on their behalf. Written arguments are filed by both parties. Heard both parties.
5. On a consideration of the material brought on record, the following points have emerged for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
- If so, to what relief.?
6. Point No.1 & 2:-
We have perused the entire record on hand, admittedly the complainant has obtained various policies like Business Suraksha Policy, Standard Force and Special Perils Insurance Policy, Burglary (House breaking) Insurance Policy and Future Money Insurance Policy from opposite parties and the said policies were covering the risks of entire business premises of the complainant along with furniture, Office equipment, Computers, physical cash, table etc.,
During the subsistence of the policy, there was a fire accident on 11.02.2018 in the premises of the complainant’s showroom and the entire showroom was burnt including furniture, office equipment and physical cash of Rs.7,08,822/-. The complainant approached the insurance company/opposite party claiming for an amount of Rs.7,08,822/- as loss of physical cash present in the showroom’s safe basing on which, the opposite parties have appointed a surveyor for verification and estimation of the damage caused due to the fire accident. The surveyor verified the safe where the cash was kept and got it opened by the Godrej Company’s technician in the presence of the surveyor and found that the cash was soiled and damaged.
It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party has repudiated his genuine claim inspite of there being a clear surveyor’s report showing that the cash in the safe was damaged due to fire. The complaint also submitted that the opposite party while repudiating his claim conveniently took shelter under a part of the operative part in the policy rather than taking into consideration the entire operative part of the policy terms and conditions.
Whereas the opposite parties submitted that the complainant has not specifically mentioned under which relevant clause of the policy, the opposite parties were liable to pay and further also submitted that the policy represents a contract between their company and the complainant and that both the parties were bound by terms and conditions of the policy. They submitted that according to the conditions of policy, the claim was payable if the loss was caused by Robbery, Theft, Burglary and House breaking and not due to any other reasons. Clause 1 of the operative part of the policy reads as under.
The company will indemnify the insured
- up to the limit of indemnity specified in the schedule for the loss in transit of Money whilst carried by the insured or its authorized Employee, caused by Robbery, Theft or any other fortuitous event and or
- up to the limit of indemnity specified in the schedule for the loss of Money from a safe and or Strong room in the premises mentioned in the schedule caused by Burglary or Robbery.
- Up to the limit of indemnity specified in the schedule for the loss of Money from the insured’s cash counter in the premises mentioned in the schedule during the office hours caused by Housebreaking or Robbery.
As submitted by the opposite parties, the complainant has not clearly mentioned as to under which particular clause he was entitled to claim the amount, but he however pointed out to subclause 1.1 of clause No.1 of Operative part in Money Insurance Policy Wordings and stated that his claim can be allowed on the said point.
The said operative part is again reproduced here in for more clarify – the company will indemnify the insured under subclause 1.1 of clause 1 Up to the limit of indemnity specified in the schedule for the loss in transit of Money whilst carried by the insured or its authorized Employee, caused by Robbery, Theft or any other fortuitous event and or…..
According to submission of Complainant, he relied on the last wordings in the last line of above clause 1.1 “any other fortious event” which means happening by chance basing on which, the complainant submitted that his claim can be allowed. But when the clause is read in entirety, it gives a meaning that the Insurance Company was liable for the loss of money in transit only and does not cover loss of money from safe or strong room in the premises mentioned in the schedule.
However, on reading all the clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of point no.1 of operative part in MONEY INSURANCE POLICY WORDINGS, it clearly shows that the policy does not make the company/opposite party liable for loss of money caused due to fire. Hence, the opposite party is justified in repudiating the claim. Hence, we find that there is no merit in the case of complainant, as such the complaint is dismissed without costs.
7. Point No.3
In the result, complaint is dismissed in the circumstances each party to bear their own costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this 24th the day of March, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1– Copy of Business Suraksha Insurance Policy, vide policy No. 2017-
F0353003-BSS dt. 30.04.2017.
Ex.A2 – Copy of Standard Fir and Special perils Insurance Policy, vide
policy No. 2017-F0353005-FRE dt. 30.04.2017.
Ex.A3 - Burglary (House breaking) Insurance Policy vide policy No. 2017-
B0062746-FBG dt. 30.04.2017.
Ex.A4 – Copy of Copy of Future money Insurance policy vide policy No.
2017-M0504314-FMY dt. 30.04.2017.
Ex.A5 – Copy of without prejudice Notice dt. 01.10.2018.
Ex.A6 - Copy of legal notice dt. 01.10.2018.
Ex.A7 - Copy of reply notice dt. 05.03.2019.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex. B1 – Copy of Policy copy along with conditions
Ex. B2 – Copy of survey report
Ex. B3 – Copy of repudiation letter dt. 01.10.2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
