Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1747/2008

Globe Capital Market Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Mar 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1747/08                     Dated:

In the matter of:

GLOBE CAPITAL MARKET LTD.,

612, ANSAL BHAWAN, 16 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110001

THROUGH MR. PRADEEP KHANDELWAL,

COMPLIANCE OFFICER & AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LTD.,

MUMBAI REGIONAL OFFICE NO.2,

ORIENTAL HOUSE, 7^TH FLOOR,

7, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, CHURCHGATE,

MUMBAI-400020

THROUGH THE CHIEF MANAGER, FINANCE SECTOR, (MROII)

(ALSO HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT):-

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

HO: HANSALAYA, 10^TH FLOOR, 15, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001

(ALSO HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT):-

ORIENTAL HOUSE,

P.B.NO.7037, A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD,

NEW DELHI-110002

(THROUGH DY. GENERAL MANAGER)

………. OPPOSITE PARTY

ORDER 

President:  C.K. Chaturvedi

The complaint alleges deficiency on the part of OP in repudiating a claim of loss in trading of shares due to mistake of the employees of the complainant in office.  The facts are that Complainant Company had taken fidelity Insurance from OP; to cover loss due to infidelity of its employees.  It is alleged that on

The OP appointed a surveyor, who submitted a report, according to which it was the complaint itself which tried to manipulate the market and deliberately caused the figures in such a way to allege as mistake of the employees, and on this ground repudiated the claim of Rs.9,50,000/- loss allegedly suffered by complainant.

We have considered the complaint summarily and perused the documents and other material on record and considered the submissions.

There is no dispute on the Employee Indemnity Policy issued by OP, covering loss of 10 lakhs of rupee in business due to employees’ infidelity.  The terms of the policy provide for incidence of loss on the following grounds:-

Admittedly as per the case of the complaint, the employee namely Kumkum Gupta, by mistake provided different figures.  If that is so, it cannot be described as done by any dishonest intention of the employee, as it is done by mistake, which she also tried to reverse to some extent.  The policy does not cover loss which is not by dishonest intention.  The employee has no interest to gain by such act.

On the other hand, the Survey Report as accepted by OP, places onus of mistake operated on the instruction of director of complaint company.  In our view, even if OPs case of deliberate act of manipulation by complaint is accepted as true, or even if it is ignored, it makes no difference to the case.  In case, it is accepted that complaint himself caused the said mistake, then also the policy would not cover the loss, as it is done by complaint itself.  The policy does not cover loss by any act of employer.  In either event, the case for complaint is not made out for claiming loss under the policy.

The OP has committed no deficiency, though it has repudiated the policy on a ground which ground also not covered the policy.  The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

        Pronounced in open Court on 10.03.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)         (RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER                       MEMBER