--

Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This appeal has been filed by the original Opponent No.2 against the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai, in Consumer Complaint No.31/2004 decided on 31.03.2008.  While allowing the complaint partly, the Forum directed original Opponent No.2 - Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the Complainant amount equivalent to US$ 600 with interest @9% per annum from 01.05.2003 till actual payment is made and also directed to pay `5,000/- for mental harassment and `3,000/- towards costs.  Aggrieved by the said order, original Opponent No.2 – Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

(2)                Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:

The Complainant had been given Gold Credit Card of Standard Chartered Bank, Lower Parel, Mumbai.  Said Credit Card was to expire on June, 2004.  While issuing Credit Card of Standard Chartered Bank a booklet was given to the Complainant and it mentioned that while undertaking inland or international travel if the card holder loses his checked in baggage that baggage would be covered for insurance claim.  The Complainant Shri Ajay Shrikrishna Jindal, had on 1^st May, 2003 undertaken travel from Mumbai to Zurich via London by British Airways and at Zurich Airport he found that his one bag was missing.  He brought this fact to the Airport authorities at Zurich.  Thereafter, he lodged insurance claim with Opponent No.2 – Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd. for missing valuables from the said lost bag.  The British Airways paid him US$ 600 as per International Baggage Settlement Regulation.  The Complainant was holder of American Express and United Insurance Credit Card.  They had also paid US$ 500 for the lost bag.  The Complainant had submitted claim with Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd. on 01.08.2003.  The Royal Sundaram Aliace Insurance Co. Ltd. by letter informed him that his credit card was inactive w.e.f. 01.05.2003 and therefore claim was rejected.  Likewise it was further informed that, w.e.f. 01.10.2002 as per amended rules regarding claim, 90 days user of credit card preceding the loss of bag was essential prerequisite for lodging the claim and since he had not used the said credit card for 90 days nothing was payable to the Complainant.  Complainant had therefore filed consumer complaint claiming amount of `2,02,920/- for the loss of bag as well as articles kept therein during international air travel.

(2)                Opponent No.1 filed written version and pleaded that it had provided policy to the credit card holders only through Opponent No.2, the insurance Company and for repudiation of the claim the Opponent No.2 had given satisfactory reply.  Hence, Opponent no.1 – Standard Chartered Bank claimed that they are not responsible for the payment or non-payment of insurance dues by the Opponent No.2 Company.

(3)                Opponent No.2 filed written version and pleaded that while renewing the policy every year some new terms are already incorporated.  Likewise, when latest policy was issued in favour of Standard Chartered Bank they had incorporated a condition that Card holder should have used the credit card within 90 days immediately preceding from the date of filing of claim by any card holder.  The Complainant had not used the said credit card for 90 days before the claim and therefore, Insurance Company pleaded that it was not responsible for the payment of the claim lodged by the Complainant.

(4)                The Forum, however, considering the affidavits and documents placed on record held that the Opponent No.2 Insurance Company had repudiated the claim on wrong grounds.  The Opponent No.2 had not informed the Complainant that w.e.f. 01.10.2002 amended rules were in force in respect of policy purchased by Standard Chartered Bank.  The Forum also noted that said credit card had been used in June, 2003 for making purchase and on 15.07.2003 by cheque some amount was deposited in the credit card account and therefore, the Forum held that credit card of the Complainant was not rendered inactive.  As such, Insurance Company was liable to pay to the Complainant US$ 600 or its equivalent value in rupees and therefore, it allowed the complaint as mentioned in opening paragraph and fastened liability on Opponent No.2.

(5)                Against the award Opponent No.2 Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

(6)                We heard submissions of Advocate Mr.S.R. Singh for the Appellant and Mr.S. Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.2.  None appeared for Respondent No.1.

(7)                It was contended before us that Credit Card was effective from June, 2001 to June, 2004 and loss of baggage of the Complainant (Respondent No.1) occurred on 1^st May, 2003.  The Insurance Policy was purchased by Standard Chartered Bank on 01.10.2002 and it was effective upto 30.09.2003.  Said Policy according to Advocate Mr.S.R. Singh mentioned of clause to the effect that insured person shall mean and include “All active credit card holders of Standard Chartered Bank as on 01.10.2002 and aged 18 years or above”.  In the next paragraph the active credit card holder has been defined to mean “Credit Card holders of Standard Chartered Bank should make at least one transaction, such as purchase, repayment or withdrawal within the 90 days prior to the date of loss covered under the policy”.  Date of loss Mr.S.R. Singh rightly submitted to Respondent No.1 – Ajay Shrikrishna Jindal as on 01.05.2003.  So, as per this definition as mentioned in the policy issued by Appellant Insurance Company in favour of Standard Chartered Bank, the active card holder must have made at least one transaction such as purchase, repayment or withdrawal within 90 days prior to the date of loss covered under the policy.  So, Respondent No.1 was supposed to prove before claiming benefit of this policy that before loss of his baggage (admittedly on 01.05.2003) while he was traveling in British Airways from Mumbai to Zurich via London in which flight he had lost one checked in baggage, he had used the said credit card of Standard Chartered Bank at least once before 01.05.2003 within 90 days.  The evidence on record did not establish that before 01.05.2003 he had used the credit card within 90 days preceding 01.05.2003.  In fact, the Forum took into account subsequent transactions of using of credit card.   It took into account the fact that in June, 2003 some purchase was made by Standard Chartered Bank Credit Card issued to Complainant.  Then on 15.07.2003 he had deposited some cheques.  However, these are transactions made through credit card by Respondent No.1 only after loss of baggage i.e. on 01.05.2003 but not 90 days before the said loss of bag.  So, the Respondent No.1 did not fall or did not come within the ambit of definition of Active Credit Card holders as defined in the policy issued to Standard Chartered Bank by Appellant Insurance Company. 

(8)                What is pertinent to note is the fact that at the relevant time the said credit card was found to be in inactive state.  When this is so, in our view, the Forum erred in law in allowing the complaint filed by Mr.Ajay Shrikrisna Jindal. erroneously overlooking or ignoring the vital definition of Active Credit Card holder.  We hold that the Respondent No.1 was not at all covered by the definition of Active Credit Card Holder to get benefit of policy purchased by Standard Chartered Bank from Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co. Ltd., the Appellant herein.  He had not used his Credit Card within 90 days preceding the date of loss of baggage during flight from Mumbai to Zurich via London on 01.05.2003 and for this reason his claim was rightly repudiated by Insurance Company, the Appellant herein.  The Forum erroneously allowed the complaint taking into account subsequent transactions made by Respondent No.1.  Therefore, insurance claim could not be honoured as per contractual terms.  Hence, we are required to allow this appeal to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Forum.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

                (i)                 Appeal is allowed.

              (ii)                 Impugned judgement and award passed in Consumer Complaint No.31/2004 is quashed and set aside.

            (iii)                 Consumer complaint stands dismissed.

            (iv)                 Parties are left to bear their own costs.

              (v)                 Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 8^th June, 2011.