STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

1.     National Insurance Co. Ltd., 3 Middleton Street Calcutta through its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2.     National Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.305-306, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.              

                ---Appellants/Opposite Parties 

Versus

M/s Berkeley Automobile Ltd., Plot No.87, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula through Sh.O.P.Sharma its Legal and Liaison Officer.

                                                …. Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued By:  Brig. B.S.Taunque, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Sh.Sandeep Jasuja Advocate for the respondent. 

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.10.2011 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Parties(now appellants) as under:

“10.          As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,14,000/-as assessed by the surveyor. The OPs shall also pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month  from the date of receipt of the certified copy.

11.           This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the entire amount of Rs.5,64,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 08.02.2010 till realization besides costs of litigation”. 

2.                    The facts, in brief are that, the complainant-Company which deals in the business of selling cars, in order to cover the risk of cash/money used to take money insurance policies from the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the complainant got renewed the money insurance policy from Opposite Party No.2, for the period from 10.03.2007 to 09.03.2008 for estimated annual transactions of Rs.3 crores, which was later on extended for a sum of Rs.15 crores. As per the policy schedule, the following insurance coverage was provided:-

                Cash on counter                                25 lakh

                Cash in safe                                      15 lakh

                Cash in transit with single                  30 lakh

                Carrying limit   

It was further stated that on 18.01.2008, Sh.Satish Sharma alongwith Sh.Tarlochan Singh was going from Berkeley Dealership, Panchkula to ICICI Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula, in a car, for depositing an amount of Rs.5,14,000/-, which was kept in a bag. The bag containing Rs.5,14,000/- was snatched at the gun point, by some persons. FIR No.7 of 2008 in Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula (Annexure C-9), to this effect, was recorded. Opposite Party No.2 was also informed telephonically, as well as vide written communication dated 21.01.2008 (Annexure C-10). It was further stated that the complainant submitted all the relevant documents, for release of the claim. It was further stated that M/s N.Kumar Surveyors (P) Ltd. was appointed as investigator to investigate the incident and assess the loss. It was further stated that the complainant provided all the requisite documents, but still the Opposite Parties were delaying the claim on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that the complainant was forced to file a complaint before the District Forum and only thereafter the Opposite Parties  repudiated the claim vide letter dated 30.11.2009, on the ground, that the sum assured was far from fair estimate of the actual cash in transit during the preceding year. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In their written reply, the Opposite Parties admitted that the policy was taken by the complainant for the period from 10.03.2007 to 09.03.2008. It was stated that the policy was in the first instance extended upto Rs.5 crores and then to Rs.15 crores. It was denied that on the expiry of the policy, the final premium was subject to adjustment basis on the actual transaction of cash during the currency of the policy. It was further stated that if during the currency of the policy, the total sum assured stood exhausted, the complainant was supposed to pay further premium. In the present case, after considering the money transit, which had already taken place, the sum assured stood exhausted on the date of loss and there was no premium available for covering that risk. It was further stated that the policy for a sum of Rs.15 crores was not extended on the date of loss. Rather the said extension was given after the loss w.e.f. 25.01.2008. It was further stated that as per the surveyor’s report, the sum of Rs.5 crores for the risk taken by the insurer, as cash in transit, had already exhausted on 25.05.2007 and, on calculation, the total cash in transit during the policy period from the commencement of policy to the date of loss came to be Rs.23,14,07,619/-, whereas, the complainant had paid premium for Rs.5 crores. It was further stated that the surveyor did not recommend the passing of claim. It was further stated that keeping in view the report of the surveyor and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter 30.11.2009. It was further stated that, the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that the premium was received from the complainant for a sum of Rs.3 crores, at the time of renewal of the policy for the period from 10.03.07 to 09.03.08.  The limit was extended on payment of additional premium on 04.01.2008 to Rs.5 crores, which was further got extended for a sum of Rs.15.00 crores w.e.f. 25.01.2008 on account of cover for cash in transit. He further submitted that as per the report of the surveyor, the limit of Rs.5 crores for the risk taken by the insurer, as cash, in transit, had already exhausted on 25.05.07 and on calculation, the total cash in transit during the policy period from the date of commencement of the policy, to the date of loss, came to be Rs.23,14,07,619/-, whereas, the complainant paid premium for the coverage of Rs.5.00 crores only and, as such, the surveyor did not recommend for passing the claim.   He further submitted that a sum of Rs.5.14 lacs was being taken by Sh.Satish Sharma, Cashier and the driver in a Wagon R Car, which was a demo vehicle of the Company, and even they were not carrying any weapon to protect themselves against any mischief by miscreants to deprive them of the money being carried for depositing in the Bank.  He has further submitted that the complainant tried to mislead the District Forum by placing on record copy of the report of surveyor, Annexure C-24, by manipulating the adjustment of risk paragraph and the liability /recommendations para of the report. He further submitted that keeping in view the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and the report of surveyor, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter 30.11.2009 (Annexure A-8).

9.                    On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the complainant took the Money Insurance Policy for the period from 10.03.07 to 09.03.08 for estimated annual transactions of Rs.3 crores, which was later on extended to Rs.15 crores. He further submitted that, as per condition No.2 of the terms and conditions of the policy, Annexure C-5, at page 35, the complainant applied for the extension of policy in January, 2008 and the same was duly extended by the Opposite Parties during the subsistence of policy period and, thus, the Opposite Parties had no right to repudiate the claim, because they themselves extended the insurance cover even after the incident.

10.                 Concededly, the incident of robbery took place on 18.1.2008, during the currency of the policy, which was valid from 10.3.2007 to 9.3.2008. As per condition no. 2 of the policy i.e. adjustment of premium,  the complainant applied for the extension of the policy in January, 2008, which was admittedly extended by the Opposite Parties, during the subsistence of policy period. Keeping this fact into consideration, we are of the opinion, that once the Opposite Parties extended the Insurance Policy, then they had no reason to repudiate the claim, on the ground, that the risk taken by the complainant, as cash in transit, had already exhausted and it was entitled for the indemnification of loss of Rs.5.14 lacs, as assessed by the surveyor vide its report dated 31.03.2008, Annexure A-6 after verifying the documents provided by it(complainant). However, the comments given by the surveyor in its report were  not required to be made, which were against condition No.2 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.  

11.                 Further, we do not find any merit, in the submission of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that the terms and conditions of the policy are against the Insurance Act, as they, failed to adduce any tangible evidence to show that the terms and conditions of the policies are not in accordance with Insurance Act. The other submission of the Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties  that a sum of Rs.5.14 lacs was being taken by Sh.Satish Sharma, Cashier and the driver in a Wagon R car, which was a demo vehicle of the Company and they were not carrying any weapon to protect themselves against the mischief by the miscreants to deprive them of the money being carried for depositing in the bank is not tenable because Sh.Satish Sharma was carrying the cash in transit in a bag in the car which being driven by the driver. Thus, in our view, the complainant took all reasonable care and precaution to safeguard the  cash, in transit.  The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12.                 The submission of the Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the complainant tried to mislead the District Forum by placing on record copy of the report of surveyor, Annexure C-24 by manipulating the adjustment of risk paragraph and the liability /recommendations para of the report is not sustainable because the report of the surveyor was a document possessed by the Opposite Parties, and it was for them to keep the same in safe custody.  However, the alleged manipulation hardly makes any difference on the decision of the appeal as this Commission has taken into consideration the surveyor report, Annexure A-6/R-2 produced by the appellants and not the unsigned surveyor report produced by the complainant before the District Forum.

13.                 In this view of the matter, the Opposite Parties certainly committed deficiency in rendering service by illegally repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant.  With these observations, we are of the considered opinion, that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint.  The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

14.                 The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-

16.04.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

cmg

                                                                                                            sd/-                                   [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER