This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. P.B. Sri Ramulu, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. K. Rama Rao, Advocate for Opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is the State Bank of Hyderabad, Satyanarayanapuram branch, Khammam District, its Head Office had obtained Bankers Blanket Indemnity Insurance policy from the opposite party vide policy No.4083/57501848/00/00 for its Branches for a period of one year from 01-08-2009 to 31-07-2010.  During the policy was in existence i.e. on 14-09-2009 at about 2:25 PM around 40 persons armed with guns entered into the Bank and demanded money, lying in the Bank by pointing guns on the staff, due to which, the cashier of Bank handed over the cash at Rs.10,00,000/-under fear and desperate condition and they also taken away 5 cell phones worth of Rs.20,000/-, Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle worth of Rs.20,000/-.  Upon which, complained the same to the police.  The police issued FIR under sections 147, 148, 342, 395 R/W 149 of IPC and Sec.3 of  P.D.P.P. Act. and section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act and sections 10, 13 of unlawful activities (Prevention) Act and issued FIR.  Thereafter, claimed the opposite party for insurance amount as the risk under robbery or burglary was covered under said policy but the opposite party informed that they cannot entertain the claim by the reason that it is an act of burglary by terrorists and repudiated the claim.  After that the complainant addressed  a letter on 22-12-2010 by requesting to reconsider the decision as the very object of crime was only to steal money and assets of the Bank but not cause any apprehension or damage to the general public and as such the complainant addressed another letter to the opposite party on 10-01-2011 and requested to reconsider the matter.  The complainant further submitted that the FIR was not issued under TADA  and no competent authority declared that it is an act of terrorism and also there is no intention to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of people.  The offenders only robbed the money from the Bank and have no other intention to do terrorist activity and as such the complainant referred the matter to the IRDA on 28-06-2011 and as there is no response from the opposite party, lost hope, approached the Forum by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and prayed to direct them to pay Rs.10,40,000/- to the complainant under policy together with interest @18% per annum from the date of claim and costs.

 3.      In support of it’s case, the complainant / Bank filed affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A13.

4.       After service of notice, the opposite party filed its counter.

In the counter, the opposite party denied all the averments of the complaint by submitting that according to the documents, supplied by the complainant, it is an act of burglary by terrorists and as such the policy is not covered the risk of terrorism and as per terms and conditions of the policy there is no coverage in case of losses caused due to an act of terrorism.  The Branch Manager of Bank complained the incident by stating that, on 14-09-2009  CPI (Maoist) Chandranna, Venkatapuram, pamedu area committees and Militia Members about 40 persons attacked the Bank and caused loss and the same was mentioned in the FIR and as such the opposite party submitted that the loss caused due to the act of terrorism.  The opposite party further submitted that the Government of India declared the CPI Maoist party as a terrorist organization  and as per exclusions warranty clause of policy terms and conditions, there is no liability on the part of opposite party under said policy.  The surveyor, who appointed in this case, opined that the loss caused due to the act of terrorism.  According to the claim Form,   submitted by the complainant/Bank, there is no security guard available at the time of incident and averred that it is the negligence of the complainant/bank and as such there is no liability on the part of it and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs as there is no deficiency of service.

5.       In support of its averments, the opposite party filed written arguments with the same averments as mentioned in its counter and placed the Reliance of Hon’ble Apex court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Premlata Shukla and Ors.  (C.A. No.2526 of 2007) and also relied the decision of High Court of Gujarat in New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Jaysukhlal Manganlal Doshi and Ors.  (in F.A. Nos. 2345 and 2346 of 2005).

          Along with a petition vide IA.No.7 of 2015 the opposite party filed exhibits B1 to B8

6.       In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-        

There is no dispute regarding the issuance of Bankers Blanket Insurance Policy in the name of State Bank of Hyderabad for all its branches, all over country and also not in dispute regarding the existence of policy at the time of incident and submission of claim Form, the only dispute is with regard to the entitlement of claim amount under said policy.  It is the case of the complainant/SBH, Satyanarayanapuram Branch, that during the policy was in force, that is on 14-09-2009 around 40 persons of Maoist local area committee and Militia members armed with guns, robbed the Bank and taken away Rs.10,00,000/-, lying in the Bank by threatening the Bank’s people.  After giving complaint before police, claimed for insurance amount  but the opposite party repudiated its claim and there is no response even after making many representations for reconsideration of it’s decision, due to which, approached this Forum by alleging the deficiency of service.  On the other hand the opposite party denied it’s liability as the claim is not acceptable under terms and conditions of policy.  In support of it’s case, placed policy schedule,   marked under exhibit B2, part-II of policy schedule speaks that terrorism damage exclusion warranty clause, wherein, clearly mentioned that “this insurance excludes loss, damage, cost or expense of whatsoever nature directly or indirectly caused by, resulting from or in connection with any act of terrorism regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any other sequence to the loss.

An act of terrorism means an act, including but not limited to the use of force or violence and / or the threat thereof, any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of or in connection with any organization(s) or government(s), committed for political, religious, ideological or similar purpose including the intention to influence any government and / or to put the public, or any section of the public in fear”.

But on behalf of complainant, no documents were filed to disprove the averments of opposite party and failed to take any steps in support of its / complainant averments, if there is any supporting evidence, it might have filed the same before this Forum to disprove the contentions of the opposite party.   But the complainant/SBH failed to file any conclusive proof except filing of FIR.  Moreover, according to the FIR, marked under exhibit A3   the Bank Manager himself complained the incident to the police by stating that it is an act of terrorism, done by 40 persons of Maoist Militia and Area committee members, it clearly shows that it is an act of terrorism by Maoist group, which is a banned organization by central government.  Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to go beyond the terms and conditions of the policy.  In this respect, we relied the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in LIC of India Vs Banwari Lal Yadav IV (2013) CPJ 38 (NC) and in LIC of India Vs Shri Girraj Mehta in R.P.No.3123 of 2008, decided on 25-05-2010.  In LIC of India Vs Shri Girraj Mehta’s case, the Hon’ble National Commission categorically stated that “…..the courts should give true import of terms and conditions of policy, without making any addition or even stretching those terms and conditions” and as such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant/SBH as there is no entitlement under terrorism damage exclusion warranty clause of policy in dispute. 

7.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.   

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 30^th day of September, 2015.

                                                  FAC President               Member       

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party  

       None                                                                             None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

FAC President               Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khamm