Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President :
Heard both sides. This appeal has been filed against the order in consumer complaint No. 112/2006 decided on 24.2.2010 by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune. The complaint is allowed partly and the appellant is directed to pay an amount of `99,300/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 7.2.2006 till realization of the said amount. The appellants are directed to make payment within two months. Other reliefs are rejected.
The appellant is original opponent while the respondent is original complainant.
The admitted facts are as under :
The Complainant is running business of grocery items and he has taken General Merchant Cover Policy from the Respondent Insurance Company. While the said policy was in force, the incident had taken place on 6.12.2005 and the Complainant had sustained a loss of `99,300/-.
The Complainant’s case is that on the date of incident, he had been to the bank and he had withdrawn `99,300/-. Thereafter, he came to his grocery shop which is located in the premises 125, Nana Peth Nandi Society, Pune. Throughout the day, he carried out business and at evening he closed the shop. Thereafter, he was going to his residence. At that time theft of amount had been taken place and therefore, he made insurance claim to the Respondents. The Respondents repudiated his claim by letter dated 7.2.2006 on a ground that the said theft had not taken place in the transit as contemplated under the Insurance Policy. Therefore, Complainant had filed this complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune which was allowed by the said Forum and therefore, this Opponent – Insurance Company has preferred this appeal which requires consideration whether at the time of theft, it can be said that the money possessed by complainant was in transit as contemplated under insurance policy. If answer to this question is yes, the complaint has to be allowed and answer to this question is no, the complaint has to be dismissed or rejected. The relevant clause of insurance policy is as under :-
CASH IN TRANSIT
Terms and Conditions :
“The Company shall compensate the insured for loss of money in coins and /or notes caused by burglary, robbery or theft occurring while such money is in the insured’s possession and is being conveyed by the insured to the insured’s premises from the insured’s bank/ATM from where such money had been withdrawn immediately prior to the occurance.
For the purpose of this coverage, ‘transit’ is defined as conveyance of cash from the bank/ATM to the insured’s premises and covers movement of the insured to any other place on route within the defined municipal limits of such premises.”
On reading this clause, it will be clearly evident that the insurance protection has been provided for the money withdrawn from the Bank/ATM while coming to the insured’s premises. For the purpose of this clause also explained word ‘transit’ and it has been stated as conveyance of cash from the bank/ATM to the insured’s premises and covers movement of the insured to any other place on route within the defined municipal limits of such premises.
Insured’s premises has been defined in the said Insurance Policy in clause 1 and the definition of the premises means insured’s shop as stated in the schedule which is occupied mainly for business purpose by insured. The property stated in the schedule is 125, Nana Peth, Nandi Society, Pune where the grocery shop of the Complainant is located. If we take into consideration this aspect, the transit of cash or movement of the cash from the bank/ATM to the insured’s premises viz. 125, Nana Peth, Nandi Society, Pune is a route to which the insurance protection has been provided by this Insurance Policy. It is admitted position on record that in the morning cash was withdrawn from the bank and Complainant had been to his insured’s premises i.e. 125, Nana Peth, Nandi Society, Pune. Throughout the day, he carried business and in the evening he was coming to his residence. Therefore, the transit movement of money from the insured’s premises to the residence of the complainant is not covered under this Insurance Policy and theft has taken place while the cash was in movement from the insured’s premises to the residence of the complainant. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent tried to submit that the movement of the cash to any other place on route is also covered under this policy. We are not in agreement with the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. What we find that the insurance coverage provided under this clause is over moment after withdrawal of the cash, the Complainant came to his shop, 125, Nana Peth, Nandi Society, Pune. Every evening, he is coming from insured’s premises to his residence. This is not a route which was covered under the Insurance Policy and this is not a route which is on route from the bank to the insured’s premises. Therefore, argument is without any substance. Under these circumstances, what we find is that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune committed an error in allowing the complaint. The interpretation of the clause have to be made as per the interpretation provided under the Insurance Policy. The respondent tried to submit that the Consumer Fora shall interpret in favour of the consumer. This is not the correct submission. Whenever the Insurance Policies are issued, the relations are governed under insurance contract and unless the case falls within the terms and conditions of the policy, Insurance Company cannot be saddled to pay the compensation. Therefore, what we find is reasoning adopted by the District Forum is wrong and not sustainable in law. Therefore, we are allowing this appeal. Hence the following order :
O R D E R
Appeal is allowed. The order dated 24.2.2010 passed in consumer complaint No. 112/2006 by the Pune is set aside. We find original complaint is without any merit and stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
The Appellant has deposited amount in this State Commission while taking stay order and also while filing appeal. Registrar is directed to return those amounts to the Appellant after period to file revision to the National Commission is over.
Pronounced dated 21st July 2011.
