Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1157/2008

S. Khanna & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001.

 

Case No.C.C./1157/2008                                                                                                           Dated:

In the matter of:

M/S. S. KHANNA & Co.

3E/12, Jhandewalan,

New Delhi- 110055

Through its Sole Proprietor

Mr. Surjit Khanna

        ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

M/s. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

N-34, Bombay Life Building, 1^st Floor,

Connaught Circus,

New Delhi

               .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

PRESIDENT: S.K. SARVARIA

ORDER

 

                Complainant is the policy holder of OP Company vide policy No.310300/48/06/07/0000048 covering the loss for a sum of Rs. 15,42,000/-.

It is alleged by the complainant that on 16/7/07 the brief case containing some important paper, pass book and Rs. 60,000/-was stolen by some unknown person.  FIR to this effect was lodged with Police Station, Connaught Place.  The complainant had lodged a claim with the OP which was repudiated on the following grounds:-

1. The policy covers cash in transit from office to bank whereas in case the briefcase with cash was left in the unattended while parking outside.
2. The briefcase was alleged to have been stolen from the unattended car while the rear door was not locked.
3. You have not instructed your driver to take care of the briefcase while leaving the briefcase in the car.

(A copy of intimation of rejection to the applicant is annexed herewith and is marked as “Annexure-A-8”.(colly)

          The complainant has alleged that the repudiation of the claim was unjustified and uncalled for. Hence this complaint.

          The OP has contested the complaint and has filed written statement.  It has denied any deficiency in service on its part and has claimed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Pare No. 1 and 7 of the preliminary objection of the written statement in relevant for the disposal of the complaint and is reproduced as under:-

1.  

(7) That fact of the case is not covering vide said Insurance Policy No. 310300/48/06/07/00000418 exclusion No.6 of Money Insurance Policy Clause which read as “Money carried under contract of affreightment and theft of money from unattended vehicle” hence liable to be dismisses.”

          Complainant has filed the evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Surjit Khanna, Proprietor of M/s S. Khanna & Co. On behalf of OP the evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Rajkumari, Div. Manager of OP Company is filed.   

          We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

          The sole question for our consideration is as to whether the OP Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim lodged by the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for OP has contended that the alleged claim of the complainant falls under execution clause No. 6 of Money Insurance Policy which read as “Money carried under Contract of affreightment and theft of money from unattended vehicle” and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          The counsel for the complainant on the other hand has stated that the money was not carried under act of affreightment.  The money was carried by the complainant in his own vehicle. The money was never stolen from unattended vehicle, the driver was all the time near the vehicle, hence there is no breach of any terms and conditions of the policy.

          We, are in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the complainant and the same has also been proved by the contents of the FIR dated 16/7/2007 which shows that the vehicle was attended by driver who was present there.

          In view of the above discussion and the documents placed on the record, we are of the considered opinion that the OP had repudiated the claim of the complaint on the inappropriate grounds leading to inference of deficiency in service on the part of OP Company.

          We hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:

1. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 60,000/- alongwith 10% simple interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 27/8/08      till realization.
2. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for pain and mental agony suffered by him which will also include cost of litigation.

Copy of the order be sent by post to the parties free of cost. This order be sent to server www.confonet.nic.in

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum on 01/06/16.       

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                    (H M VYAS)

                                                                                      MEMBER