1.      This Revision Petition No.199 of 2021 challenges the order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (‘State Commission’) dated 21.10.2020, vide which, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal No.1593/2014 filed by the Insurance Company, affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Valsad (‘District Forum’) dated 25.11.2014 and reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 7%.

2.      As per the report of the Registry, there is 17 days delay in filing this Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in I.A. No.1708 of 2021, the Revision Petition is treated to have been filed within limitation.

3.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he is conducting business under the name M/s Manharlal Gangaram Modi as proprietor and has been regularly purchasing a Money Insurance policy from United India Insurance Company (Opposite Party OP), for many years. The policy in question, effective from 18.03.2011 to 17.03.2012, was for “Money in Transit” with coverage limit of Rs.2,00,000. On 15.02.2012, one of his employees, Jagdishbhai Modi, travelled to Daman on a motorcycle (GJ-15 LL-4455) to collect business money. After collecting the money and while returning to Valsad, Jagdishbhai was attacked by three unknown individuals on a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle near village Khadki on the National Highway. The attackers hit Jagdishbhai with wooden sticks, causing him to fall off the motorcycle, after which they took away Rs.1,56,069, stored in the motorcycle’s dickey. A police complaint was immediately lodged, and an offense bearing crime No. 40/2012 was registered at the Pardi Police Station. Despite police investigation, the culprits were not found, and the case was closed with an ‘A’ summary report under Section 173 of Cr.PC. The complainant informed OP of the robbery and submitted a claim for Rs.1,56,069. However, the OP vide letter dated 22.05.2013 repudiated the claim, stating that the policy only covered money in transit between the complainant’s Shop and Residence; Residence and Shop; Shop and Bank; and Bank and Shop within Valsad, and only by own car or public transport. In the present case, since the money was collected from Daman and transported by motorcycle, the incident did not fall within the scope of the policy. Being aggrieved by repudiation of the claim, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking payment of the amount of Rs.1,56,069/- along with 9% interest from 22.05.2013 till realization and Rs.10,000 as compensation for mental harassment and costs of the complaint.

5.      In reply before the District Forum, the OP-Insurance Company admitted that the complainant held the money insurance policy but denied liability for the claim. The OP averred that the policy covered only specific transit routes and modes of transport, which excluded money collected from Daman and the use of a motorcycle. As per the policy terms, the insured did not informed the company of any change in the mode of transit or the extension of coverage for collection from locations like Daman or Vapi.

6.      The District Forum, vide order dated 25.11.2014, partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP as under:

“ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.

2. The opponent shall pay Rs.1,56,069/- to the complainant along with interest there on at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

3. The opponent shall also pay Rs.2,000/- as a compensation for mental harassment and shall also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of this complaint to the complainant.”              

7.      Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the OP filed Appeal No.1593/2014. The learned State Commission vide order dated 21.10.2020 dismissed the Appeal, affirmed the order of the District Forum dated 25.11.2014 and reduced the rate of interest with the following order:

i)   Appeal No. 1593 of 2014 is dismissed.

ii)   The order dated 25-11-2014 passed by the learned District Forum, Valsad in complaint No. 97 of 2013 is hereby confirmed and the opponent company is hereby ordered and directed to pay Rs.1,56,069/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

Rest of the order remains unchanged.

  The amount of the Award should be paid to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.

  The appellant is directed to apply to the Account Department of the State Commission with all details of C.M.A. No./ Appeal No., Xerox copy of the receipt to withdraw the amount deposited in the State Commission. The office is hereby ordered to pay deposited amount with accrued interest on proper verification to the appellant by Account payee cheque and the cheque be handed over to the learned advocate for the appellant after obtaining receipt.”

8.      In his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner/OP reiterated the grounds taken in the Revision Petition and contended that the policy covered only specific transit routes and modes of transport, which excluded money collected from Daman and use of motorcycle. He further contended that the OP was justified in claim repudiation as per the policy terms, as the insured did not inform OP of any change in the mode of transit or the extension of coverage for collection from locations like Daman or Vapi. He sought to set aside the concurrent findings of fora below. He has relied upon the following judgments:

A. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 567;

B. Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., JT 2008 (12) SC 26;

C. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2020 SC 2237;

D. General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmull Jain, 1966 3 SCR 500;

E. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sony Cherian, II(1999) CPJ SC;

F. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 644;

G. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rameshwar Lal & Anr., R.P. No.1751/2017 decided on 18.09.2019 by NCDRC;

H. Vikram Greentech (I) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 599. 

9.      The Respondent/Complainant did not appear despite service and he was placed ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2024.

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the orders of the learned District Forum and the learned State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OP.

11.    The main issue in question in the present case is ‘whether the alleged cash loss during transit occasioned on 15.02.2012 is covered under the Money Insurance Policy in question? 

12.    In this regard, the relevant portion of the Proposal Form and the Exclusion Clause(s) under the policy in question are as follows:-

PROPOSAL FORM FOR MONEY INSURANCE

…

4. Description of Money to be insured, (if no Insurance is required for any item insert “NIL”.

---

Signing this Form does not bind the Proposer to complete the insurance, but it is agreed that this Form shall be the basis of Contract should policy be issued.

MONEY INSURANCE POLICY

SCHEDULE

…

Details of Cash Limits Under Section I:

13.    It is in common knowledge that various types of insurance products are in the market for providing insurance cover on life, health, light motor vehicles, commercial vehicles, special vehicles, personal risks, professional risks, immoveable properties, household furniture, household electronic items, crops, trees, furniture, goods, stocks, precious metals, cash in safe, goods in transit, luggage in transit, cash in transit etc. It is in common knowledge that each of these insurance products has its specific scope of cover, duration, terms and conditions as well as inherent safety/ security precautions the insured is liable to ensure so as to be entitled for the claim under the insurance contract.

14.    In catena of judgements, the nature of insurance contracts, scope and restraint to be exercised in interpreting the terms of insurance contracts were well discussed and crystallized by this Commission and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Civil Appeal No. 4769 of 2022 in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs The Chief Electoral Officer & Ors., Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

27. The insurance contracts are in the nature of special class of contracts having distinctive features such as utmost good faith, insurable interest, indemnity subrogation, contribution and proximate cause which are common to all types of insurances. Each class of insurance also has individual features of its own. The law governing insurance contracts is thus to be studied in three parts, namely, (1) general characteristics of insurance contracts, as contracts; (2) special characteristics of insurance contracts, as contracts of insurance, and (3) individual characteristics of each class of insurance.

28. Now turning to some of the judicial pronouncements, wherein it has been opined that the words used in a contract of insurance must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words (Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.). Insurance contracts are in the nature where exceptions cannot be made on ground of equity and the Courts ought not to interfere with the terms of an insurance agreement (Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd vs. Garg Sons International).

29. This Court in Vikram Greentech India Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reiterated that the insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly, without altering the nature of the contract as the same may affect the interests of the parties adversely. The clauses of an insurance policy have to be read as they are. Consequently, the terms of the insurance policy, that fix the responsibility of the insurance company must also be read strictly.

30. In several other judgements, this court has held that the insurance contract must be read as a whole and every attempt should be made to harmonise the terms thereof, keeping in mind that the rule of contra proferentem does not apply in case of commercial contract, for the reason that a clause in a commercial contract is bilateral and has mutually been agreed upon.

15.    Examination of the Proposal Form for Money Transit Insurance policy in question reveals that the Proposal Form for Money Transit Insurance was submitted and the insurance contract was entered into on 04.032001. At Para 5 (a) & (b) of the Proposal Form is mentioned that the policy is applicable anywhere in India to anywhere India.

16.    As regards the sacrosanct nature of the terms and conditions of a contract has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2010) 10 SCC 567, decided on 08.10.2010. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder:

“26. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given paramount importance, and it is not open for the court to add, delete or substitute any words.  It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer.  Therefore, the endeavor of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties.”

17.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the mandate of strict interpretation of the Insurance Clauses in the case of Canara Bank v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 3 SCC 455, decided on 06.02.2020, the relevant portion is reproduced below:

“21. The principles relating to interpretation of insurance policies are well settled and not in dispute. At the same time, the provisions of the policy must be read and interpreted in such a manner so as to give effect to the reasonable expectations of all the parties including the insured and the beneficiaries. It is also well settled that coverage provisions should be interpreted broadly and if there is any ambiguity, the same should be resolved in favour of the insured. On the other hand, the exclusion clauses must be read narrowly. The policy and its components must be read as a whole and given a meaning which furthers the expectations of the parties and also the business realities. According to us, the entire policy should be understood and examined in such a manner and when that is done, the interpretation becomes a commercially sensible interpretation...”

18.    In the present case, admittedly on 15.02.2012, an employee of the complainant, Jagdishbhai Modi, travelled to Daman on motorcycle (GJ-15 LL-4455) to collect business money. After collecting, while returning to Valsad, Jagdishbhai was attacked by three unknown individuals near village Khadki on the National Highway. The attackers hit Jagdishbhai with wooden sticks, causing him to fall off the motorcycle, after which they took away Rs.1,56,069, which was stored in the motorcycle’s dickey. A police complaint was immediately lodged, and an offense bearing crime No. 40/2012 was registered at the Pardi police station. Despite police investigation, the culprits were not found, and the case was closed with an ‘A’ summary report under Section 173 of Cr.PC. The complainant informed OP of the robbery and submitted a claim for Rs.1,56,069. However, the OP vide letter dated 22.05.2013 repudiated the claim, stating that the policy only covered money transit between the complainant’s Shop and Residence; Residence and Shop; Shop and Bank; and Bank and Shop within Valsad, and only via own car or public transport. Since the money was collected from Daman and transported by motorcycle, the incident did not fall under the scope of the policy.

19.    Clearly, the loss of cash in transit allegedly occasioned at a location far away from the Shop of the Complainant at Shri Manharlal G. Modi, Bhailal Patel Road, Chhipawad Valsad District where the same was insured. The complainant asserted that the phrase anywhere in India to anywhere India implies that he can carry money from anywhere in India to anywhere India. The OP Insurer, however, issued the Money Transit Policy only for Shop to Residence, Residence to Shop, Shop to Bank, Bank to Shop, Valsad and vice versa. If the complainant desired to obtain insurance cover for cash held during transit from anywhere to anywhere in India, he could have opted for and obtained appropriate policy from OP. Even after taking such insurance cover, for the claim to succeed, the cash so held needs to be clearly accounted for. Therefore, the alleged loss of cash was occasioned at entirely different place and while in transit. In our considered view, the phrase ‘Anywhere in India to Anywhere India’ would mean that the insurance cover for goods/ cash of a firm, which was inspected by the insurer before entering into insurance contract, could be spread anywhere in India and the insurer would continue to be liable for claim for losses, irrespective of location. In the given circumstances under which the loss of cash loss as admitted by the complainant, even if such additional insurance cover for Cash in Transit was taken, with due regard to the remaining conditions, the entitlement for reimbursement of claim for loss of cash will be subject to the complainant establishing the possession of cash and its loss.

20.    The terms and conditions of the Insurance Policies require the Insured to follow the conditions stated within the policy. In the present case, however, the complainant’s employee collected the money from Daman which is not insured location. Use of a motorcycle for the said task is also not permissible under the policy. The policy covered only specific transit routes and modes of transport, which does not include the money collected from Daman and use of a motorcycle. As per the policy terms, the insured had not informed the OP of any change in the mode of transit or extension of coverage for collection from locations like Daman or Vapi. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

21.    In view of the foregoing, the R.P. No.199 of 2021 is allowed. The order of the learned State Commission dated 21.10.2020 in Appeal No.1593/2014 and the order of the District Forum dated 25.11.2014 in Complaint No. 97/2013 are set aside.

22.    Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.