JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged thatcomplainant maintained several policies with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and the said company duly issued Standard Fire and Perils Policy being Current Policy No.OG-12-2401-4001-00002587, Burglary Insurance Policy No.OG-12-2401-4010-00001960, Money Insurance Policy No. OG-12-2401-4011-00000147 and other policies and complainant paid a total premium of Rs.79,619/- only in respect of different insurance policies and the concerned authority duly accepted and acknowledged the same.

          The insurance policies were duly issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. in favour of the complainant’s and United Bank of India has acted as an agent of the said insurance company and the premium of those insurance policies was paid to the said insurance company through the account of the complainant duly maintained by United Bank of India.

          That on or about April12, 2012 at about 12:00 hours one Sri Nirmalenmdu Das, Head Accountant of the complainant went to United Bank of India, Hatibagan Branch, 140, BidhanSarani, P.S.- Shyampukur, Kolkata for depositing a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- only and said Sri Nirmalendu Das submitted the pay-in-slip at its Scroll counter and the serial number 44 was allotted against the said pay-in-slip and thereafter N. Das stood in the queue in front of the cash counter for depositing the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- and when the turn came Sri Nirmalendu Das deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- only through the cash window and just at that relevant time, one miscreant informed to Sri N. Das that few notes had been fallen from his pocket and the Sri N. Das had looking for searching and in the meantime the said cash amount was stolen from the window of the cash counter of the said branch of United Bank of India.

          The sum assured in respect of the different policies were enhanced at the instance of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. (B.A.I.Co. Ltd.)and United Bank of India (UBI)and the said authorities assured the complainant at those policies would cover in all respects in future in all manner at any material point of time in all respects.

          As soon as the incident took place, a complaint was lodged at Shyampukur Police Station duly initiated a proceeding being Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 132 dated 12.04.2012 u/s 379 of IPC and it would be evident from the FIR that the matter was informed to the concerned P.S. on 12.04.2012 at about 13:05 hours.

          It is specifically alleged that complaint was lodged by the Branch Manager of UBI, Hatibagan Branch and upon receiving the said complaint, the concerned policy authority investigated the matter and it was detected through CC TV camera maintained by UBI, Hatibagan Branch that the said cash amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was deposited by the said Accountant of the complainant to the cash counter of the said bank that has been stolen by the miscreant.

          That the police authority could not recover the said amount which covered under the insurance policy issued by the aforesaid insurance company and such loss has been caused due to inadequate security provided by the said UBI and as such the said insurance company as well as the bank cannot deny its responsibility and liability for such loss of the complainant.

          According to the provisions of law as well as insurance policy, immediately on 12.04.2012 the complainant lodged its claim to the BAI Co. Ltd. and to the op no.4 but it is curious enough to note that by a letter dated 25.07.2012 the insurance company informed the complainant that the said claim cannot be entertained as the carrying limit from shop to Bank is Rs.15,000/-.

          It is further alleged that the said cash was never stolen between the shop and the bank and as such, the incident cannot be said that the stolen took place during transit.  It is crystal clear that the said cash amount was stolen from the cash counter of UBI of its one of the Branch office at premises No.140, BidhanSarani, P.S.-Shyampukur, Kolkata -4 and as such the reasons are assigned by the concerned insurance company is absolutely unwarranted, unjustified and against the provision of law.

          Further it is submitted that when the claim was repudiated by the insurance company complainant sent demand notice through his Ld. Advocate on 03.07.2012 but the said letter came back with a post remark ‘left’ because the said letter was sent to the address at premises No.57, Chowringhee Road, Horizon Building “A”, Kolkata -700071 and subsequently another demand notice dated 17.07.2012 was sent through his Ld. Advocate but the op nos. 1 to 4 have failed and neglected to pay any heed and on the contrary ops denied their liability and that the aforesaid facts and circumstances complainant has prayed for proper relief and for releasing the said amount from the insurance company by the ops.

          On the other hand UBI (Op nos. 3 & 4) by filing written statement submitted that the entire contents of paras- 1 to 8 are denied and further submitted that they did not give any assurance to the complainant that the policy would cover in respect of the amount in any mediclaim at any material point of time and in respect of paras- 9 to 13 of the complaint present ops denied the entire allegations but it is specifically denied that any loss has been caused to the complainant due to inadequate security provided by the op nos. 3 & 4 the theft was not committed and op nos. 3 & 4 are not liable for such loss and denied all other allegations and prayed for dismissal of this case.

          Whereas op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written version have submitted that no doubt the complainant has three policies as stated in the complaint which was issued by the op nos. 1 & 2 in favour of complainant in respect of different types of coverage of policies are 1) Fire Insurance Policy, 2) Burglary Insurance Policy and 3) Money Insurance Policy and complainant has relied upon said 3 policies but first two types of policies i.e. Fire Insurance and Burglary Insurance have no resemblance with this case and under clause 5 of exclusion of fire insurance policies, all kind of coins and paper money is strictly excluded out of coverage and under Burglary policy, the coverage is available only in respect of any occurrence as covered by the said policy, but the same is required to be happened only in the premises in the insured.  But in the present case the alleged stolen took place outside the business premises and the aforesaid two policies have got no applicability in the present case.

          Further op nos. 1 & 2 submitted that Money Insurance Policy in transit was covered and the total sum insured was Rs.15 lakhs and same was for the entire period of the validity of said policy of insurance, but for a single carriage there was a limit of Rs.15,000/- what means during a single carriage out of the total sum of money carried out of total money only Rs.15,000/- was being covered and the same is mentioned in the policy schedule and as the complainant has filed such policy schedule at running page 15 of their complaint, the dame is not filed here again.  However, the details terms and conditions of the said policy will speak that on transit no theft was committed but it was stolen from the bank, so as soon as the cashier reached the bank premises with the cash, the transit is complete and therefore the limit of Rs.15,000/- is not applicable in this case.  Further it is submitted that as per clause 2.12 of the terms and conditions of the money insurance policy clearly stated that until and unless the money is received by the bank, the same is considered to be in transit.  Now in the present case it is an admitted position that though Nirmalendu Das obtained scroll number and submitted the cashier, but the money was never received by the bank, only tendering of such money to cashier does not mean the money has been received by the bank, until and unless it is officially received and no official money receipt was issued by the bank.  Therefore, the money was in transit so the limit of coverage for a single carriage was Rs.15,000/- only under terms and conditions of the policy and as per the said policy there was further one policy excess of Rs.1,000/- on account of policy excess another sum of Rs.1,500/- on account of Re instatement premium was legally and bonafidely deducted by the op nos. 1 & 2and the balance payable sum under the terms and conditions of the policy being Rs.12,500/- was duly offered to the complainant towards the full and final settlement of the said claim.But the complainant did not receive the same and accordingly, having no other alternative, the claim was closed and repudiated and same was denied and therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the op nos. 1 & 2 and they have denied all other allegations and prayed for dismissal of the same.

Decision with reasons

          On careful consideration of the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and further considering the written version of the Insurance Company (op nos. 1 & 2) we are convinced that complainant has 3 policies and same are of 3 types and fact remains same were valid insurance policies and as per Money Insurance Policy it is found that on transit if any loss is caused or happened in that case insured is entitled to Rs.15,000/- as assessed loss and out of that amount the policy excess of Rs.1,000/- and re-instatement policy amount of Rs.1,450/- would be deducted and op nos. 1 & 2 after getting claim application considered their claim and offered Rs.12,550/- out of Rs.15,000/- after deducted the policy excess and RIP and they sent claim discharge voucher but complainant did not accept it and no doubt that letter was sent by Registered Post with A/D on 25.07.2012.

          Considering the FIR as filed by the complainant to the Manager of UBI, Hatibagan Branch, Kolkata on 12.04.2012 it is found that bank received that complaint and from the said complaint it is found that complainant deposited the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- inside the cash counter and in the meantime one fellow came and asked to NirmalenduDas that some money fell from his pocket.  So, complainant just over turn his face and tried to see the position, in the meantime from the bank’s cash counter the total deposited amount was lifted away by some unknown person and that was reported to the bank manager.  Thereafter Manager informed the matter to Shyampukur Police Station and complainant also went to Shyampukur P.S. and made diary being Case No. 132/2012 on 12.04.2012 and after that Shyampukur Police Station’s Inspector came and inspected the CC TV and bank Manager received it. But against that complaint also lodged complaint the Bank Manager, the Bank Manager did not report anything to the complainant in writing denying the allegations, not only that complainant has stated but very specifically stated that police inspector came and also inspected the CC TV footage and then from that CC TV it was detected that said money was snatched by some unknown miscreant.  The peculiar factor is that UBI Authority has not denied that fact and UBI Authority has not produced the said CC TV footage and most interesting factor is that bank has own security but that security did not work for which from the Cash Counter the amount was stolen that means the entire bank administration was very callous and in respect of protecting the daily transaction made by the customers and in this case it is not specifically denied that no money was deposited, rather from copy of scroll it is found that Sl. No.44 was placed by the Accountant of the complainant but when the said amount was snatched by the 3^rd person from inside the bank and then it is the liability of the bank because bank has failed to give any explanation for what reason and how from Cash Counter,the amount was snatched  and bank has stated that they are not responsible.  On proper consideration of the entire situation the conduct of the bank authority it is clear that from the Cash Counter the money was snatched by the miscreant and but bank is silent and this is the common practice of the bank not to give any protection to the customers who are depositing the same and in this case it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that the amount was deposited by the Accountant of the complainant to the cash counter along with scroll and when it was snatched by the miscreant which was found from the CC TV footage also and that it was removed by the miscreant from the cash counterbank became silent.  Then it is clear when the money is deposited to the cash counter of the bank then it can safely be said that amount was stolen from the bank’s cash counter that means bank’s custody.  Most interesting factor is that written statement is filed by the bank authority op nos. 3 & 4, but they have not challenged the story of the complainant rather it is proved that complainant forthwith submitted complaint to the Manager and Manager received it but did not respond. That means Bank Authority was aware of the fact that such incident took place from their cash counter.

          Another factoris that Bank Authority has not produced the CC TV footage of that date what has been inspected by the inspector of police of Shyampukur P.S. and no evidence of said police is produced in this regard by the Bank Authority what simply proves that Bank Authority only to discharge their liability and denied allegations casually.  But Bank Authority are not protecting the interest of the customer and such a conduct and the general attitude of the Bank Authority simply proved that it is the fault of the Bank Authority and it was within the knowledge of the Bank Administration for which from the cash counter of the Bank Authority it was stolen.  But Bank Authority is silent about that, that means it is a worthless Bank Administration what we have gathered. 

          Fact remains that the cash was stolen from the cash counter of the Bank.  Then it is the duty of the Bank to refund the same to the complainant.  But as because in respect of that amount there is Money Insurance which is possessed by the complainant covers only Rs.15,000/- and Insurance Authority already delivered to the complainant discharge voucher of Rs.12,550/- deducting Rs.2,450/- as per policy terms.  So out of Rs.2,25,000/-, Rs.12,550/- may be deducted and balance of Rs.2,21,450/- must be paid by the Bank Authority because the entire cash was stolen from the cash counter of the op nos. 3 & 4 which is proved and as because at the relevant time security coverage was not done by the said Bank Authority.  So, Bank Authority tried to discharge their liability stating that no such incident took place.

          Most interesting factor is that op nos. 3 & 4 have stated in their written version that no such incident took place on that date, but there is receipt in respect of the complaint of the complainant on that said date to the Bank Manager that incident took place and police came because Branch Manager reported the police.  Police inspected the CC TV footage and it was found that from Bank cash counter it was snatched away by the miscreants.  So lapses of security on the part of the bank are well proved.  At the same time bank failed to give proper protection to the customers inside the bank that is no doubt negligent and deficient manner of service and deficiency in service on the part of the op nos. 3 & 4 because complainant is a consumer of op nos. 3 & 4 also. 

          In the light of the above portion and evaluation of the entire materials on record and the facts we are confirmed that complainant has been able to prove the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op nos. 3 & 4 beyond any manner of doubt and he has also proved beyond any manner of doubt that the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- along with scroll was deposited in the cash counter of the cashier of op Bank andfrom the cash counter it was snatched by some miscreants and it was visible in the CC TV for which CC TV has not been produced and police has not been examined by the Bank Authority and in the circumstances for the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op nos. 3 & 4 complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,21,450/- from the op nos. 3 & 4 and balance amount of Rs.12,550/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company as per Insurance Policy and no doubt insurance company already sent discharge voucher and invariably insurance company op nos. 1 & 2 shall have to pay Rs.12,450/- to the complainant.

          Accordingly, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- against op nos. 3 & 4 and same is also allowed on contest against op nos. 1 & 2 but without any cost.

          Op nos. 3 & 4 are hereby directed to pay Rs. 2,12,450/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of incident i.e. 12.04.2012 and till its payment to the complainant.

          Op nos. 3 & 4 are hereby directed to issue a cheque of Rs.2,12,450/- at once in favour of the complainant and without any fail.      

          For adopting unfair trade practice by the Bank Authority in filing this written version and for denying truthful incident in such a manner op nos. 3 & 4 are hereby imposed a punitive damages of Rs.25,000/- which shall be paid to this Forum as such an act is unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank Authority op nos. 3 & 4.

          Op nos. 3 & 4 are directed to comply the order very strictly within one month from the date of this order by paying the awarded decretal amount with interest and litigation cost failing which for violation of the Forum’s order and for disobeying the Forum’s order the Bank Authority op nos. 3 & 4 shall be prosecuted and further penalty of Rs.10,000/- each op shall be imposed and even for implementation of this order warrant may be issued and proper legal action may be adopted.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 are directed to comply the order by issuing a cheque of Rs.12,250/- in favour of the complainant within one month failing which further penalty shall be imposed to the extent of Rs.10,000/- against op nos. 1 & 2.

          Parties are directed to comply the order failing which the penal action shall be taken against them.