DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 614 of 18-12-2012

Decided on 19-07-2013

The Pirkot Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Pirkot, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda through its Secretary Inderaj Singh

........Complainant

Versus

1. IFFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited, Bathinda, through its Manager

2. IFFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana, through its Regional Manager

3. IFFCO-TOKYO General Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at 34, Nehru Place, New Delhi 110 019, through its Chairman/Managing Director

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Bharti, counsel for the complainant.

For the opposite party : Sh. Varun Gupta, counsel for the opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the secretary of the complainant society under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that it keeps stock of fertilizers, pesticides, grocery material, essential commodities etc., and distributes it to the farmers/members of the society on the subsidized, 'no profit no loss' rates. The complainant society purchased an insurance policy from opposite party No. 1 for the period from 4-5-2011 to 3-5-2012.

   On the intervening night of 31-5-2011 and 1-6-2011, burglary took place in the store room of the society premises by un-identified persons who broke the main gate, office locks, safe locks, Almirah and took away various articles, stocks and cash Rs. 56,846/-. FIR No. 45 dated 3-6-2011 u/s 457 and 380 of IPC has been registered at police station, Sadar Rampura Phul, in this respect. The complainant informed the opposite parties as well as Branch In-charge on the same day i.e. on 01-06-2011. The complainant alleged that as per instructions of the opposite parties he submitted the claim form with them enclosing therewith copies of the site plan, FIR, newspaper cuttings, list of stolen items, bills regarding purchase of stocks as well as other relevant documents. The opposite parties appointed Mittal Surveyors (P) Ltd., Bathinda, to assess the loss and the said surveyor also collected all the documents. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties many times but they neither accepted the claim nor repudiated the same rather every time they demanded one document or the other whereas all the documents have already been sent to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay his genuine and valid claim alongwith compensation and cost.

2. The opposite parties filed their joint written statement and admitted that the complainant society purchased an insurance policy from them and they issued a cover note to this effect and insured the stock of fertilizer, pesticide, insecticide, karyana goods, cash in almirah etc., The opposite parties have pleaded that they issued a policy No. 47228371 against the said cover note and the same was received by the complainant firm alongwith its entire terms and conditions. The opposite parties have further pleaded that after receiving the intimation from the complainant society, they appointed Mittal Surveyors to assess the loss. M/s Mittal surveyors submitted a report and after going through the entire contents of the report, the opposite parties reached to a conclusion that the stock of tea amounting to Rs. 2400/- was missing so an amount of Rs. 2250/- was paid to the complainant society. As per report of aforesaid surveyor the cash as alleged by the complainant society was lying in the drawer on the day of theft which is an irresponsible part of the duty of the employees of the society that at the time of closing the premises of society, they left such a huge amount of Rs. 56,846/- in the drawer of the table and that too without taking any proper measures of the safe custody of the cash. Moreover, the opposite parties insured the cash in almirah not in drawer. The opposite parties have further pleaded that all claims are to be decided by them as per rules and regulations made by Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the intervening night of 31-5-2011 and 1-6-2011, the burglary took place in the premises of the society and Rs. 56,846/- were found stolen from the drawer after breaking the locks in addition to theft of tea stock. The opposite parties deputed the surveyor. The opposite parties have paid Rs. 2250/- against the tea stock and repudiated the claim of Rs. 51,846/- on the ground that the cash was not kept in the almirah. He submitted that the said cash was kept in iron drawer of the table which was duly locked meaning thereby that it was like an almirah. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the genuine claim of the complainant society.

6. On the other hand, the submission of the opposite parties is that theft took place at complainant's society store room during the intervening night of 31-5-2011 and 1-6-2011 and the opposite parties deputed surveyor M/s. Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., to survey and assess the loss. The said surveyor submitted its report dated 8-7-2011 to the opposite parties assessing the loss to the tune of Rs. 59,096/- (inclusive of cash of Rs. 56,846/- and tea (stocks of Rs. 2250/-). The opposite parties after going through the survey report and policy has settled the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 2250/- towards theft/loss of stocks as assessed by the surveyor. The theft/loss of cash to the tune of Rs. 56,846/- was not considered/paid to the complainant since the loss of cash from drawer of the table was not covered under the contract of insurance entered into between the parties. As per policy, cash inside the almirah is covered but not the cash lying in the drawer of a table. The learned counsel for the opposite parties referred authorities on the matter that the insurance is a contract.

7. These are admitted facts of the parties that the stocks and cash of the complainant society was insured with the opposite parties vide Ex. C-8. On the intervening night of 31-5-2011 and 1-6-2011, burglary took place in the premises of society. The matter was reported to the police as well as to the opposite parties. The opposite parties deputed M/s Mittal Surveyor Pvt. Ltd., The said surveyor inspected the site and submitted its report Ex. Op-1/1 to the opposite parties. The opposite parties paid Rs. 2250/- on account of theft of tea stock to the complainant but cash loss is not paid on the ground that the cash lying in the almirah is only covered whereas in the said burglary cash was stolen from table drawer.

8. After intimation of loss, the opposite parties deputed M/s. Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., and the report of said surveyor is Ex. Op-1/1. The relevant portion of said report is reproduced hereunder :-

   “..3. Insurance

   Cover Note. No. : 47006997

   Period : 4-5-11 to 3-4-12

   Sum Insured : Cash in almirah Rs. 1.00 Lac

   Cash in counter Rs. 5.00 Lacs”

   “..10. Assessment :

   a) Cash

   It was reported by the insured that cash amounting to Rs. 56,846/- lying in the table drawer was stolen. Inspection of the table drawer was made. It is apparently tempered. The cash book and other record were verified.

   …. Accordingly we assess the cash loss for Rs. 56,846/-.”

9. The plea of the opposite parties in para No. 8 of their written statement is that it is an irresponsible part of the duty of the employees of the society that at the time of closing the premises of the society, they left such a huge amount of Rs. 56,846/- in the drawer of the table and that too without taking any proper measures for the safe custody of the cash and cash is insured in almirah not in drawer whereas as reproduced above, the surveyor has specifically mentioned in his survey report that he found the drawer tampered meaning thereby that the cash was kept under lock. No size of almirah is mentioned in the cover note. When the cash was kept under lock, it cannot be said that there was any irresponsible part of the duty of the employees of the society. Moreover, otherwise also the opposite parties cannot deny the cash loss of the complainant as, if for arguments sake it be believed that the cash in question was not kept in almirah, even then the cash in counter to the tune of Rs. 5.00 Lacs is also insured and the cash in counter is always kept in drawers under lock and key only. It is the admitted fact that cash has been stolen from the drawer of the table and as per survey report, surveyor has found the drawer of the table tampered. Further more, the opposite parties have not placed any evidence on file to prove that drawer of the table where the cash in question was kept was not locked.

10. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not paying the genuine cash loss claim of the complainant society specifically when the independent surveyor deputed by the opposite parties after inspecting the site and scrutiny of necessary documents has assessed the cash loss to the tune of Rs. 56,846/-.

11. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, they are distinguishable on facts.

12. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 56,846/- being the cash loss to the complaint alongwith interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 1-10-2011, within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which an amount of Rs. 56,846/- plus interest will yield further interest @ 9% P.A. till realization.

    A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs and the file be consigned to the record.

    Pronounced in open Forum

    19-07-2013

    (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

    President

     

    (Amarjeet Paul)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member