HON'BLE MR. K.M. LAWANDE MEMBER

Present Appeal is filed by Oriental Insurance Company Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19/11/2014 passed by the learned  District Consumer Commission, Akola, in Consumer Complaint Nos.CC/13/110 by which the Consumer Complaint filed by the complainant/Respondent M/s Sadhumal Jotumal & Sons came to be allowed and appellant/Opponent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,20,664/- along with interest @9% P.A. and also to pay Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation towards mental and physical harassment besides cost of complaint. (Appellants and Respondents shall hereinafter be referred to by their nomenclature in the original complaint)

2.    Short facts leading to filing of the present appeal are narrated as under, ..

        Complainant M/s Sadhumal Jotumal & Sons claims to be a partnership firm acting through partner Mr.Manish Motwani and they are dealing in the business of sale and manufacture of turmeric powder and other allied products since last 15 years. Complainant is having its office near Telephone exchange, old Cotton Market, Akola. The complainant is having its factory at Rayli Jin, Akola. Complainant is required to deal with cash currency due to nature of business and so the Complainant firm has installed one locker in the factory and has also kept one Security Guard for the safety of the locker and currency. Complainant has contended that the firm never had any locker at the Registered office of the firm. Complainant had taken a Money Insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company by paying premium of Rs.19,657/-and the period of the policy was from 24/4/2012 to 23/4/2013. Complainant has alleged that in the intervening night between 28/6/2012 and 29/6/2012, there was house breaking and theft had taken place in the factory where the locker of the firm was installed. Complainant alleged that a cash of Rs.2,20,664/-which were kept in the locker were stolen by the thieves. Complainant came to know about the theft and so the complainant immediately lodged the report in early hours of 29/6/2012 at Ramdaspeth Police Station, Akola. Complainant also gave due intimation regarding the theft to the Opponent. The complainant, thereafter, lodged the claim with Oriental Insurance Company on 16/9/2012, but since there was no response, the complainant also issued a legal notice to the Opponent on 11/12/2012. However, the Opponent rejected the claim on the ground that the risk was not covered regarding theft of cash which was kept in the factory of the complainant firm. Complainant has contended that by rejecting the insurance claim of the complainant, the Opponent Insurance Company has indulged in deficiency in service and also Unfair Trade Practice under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986. Complainant was thus, left with no option but to file Complaint before the District Consumer Commission under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act,1986.

              The Opponent thereafter appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version on record. Opponent has not disputed the fact that the complainant had taken Money Insurance Policy for the period from 24/4/2012 to 23/4/2013. However, the Opponent has taken a specific plea that as per the insurance policy, the risk regarding cash was covered only in respect of the office premises of the complainant situated at Telephone Exchange, Old Cotton Market, Akola. Complainant firm had suppressed the fact that the factory of the complainant was situated at Rayli Jin, Akola or that the locker was kept in the premises of the said factory at Rayli Jin, Akola. In case the complainant had kept the cash in the locker at the registered office premises, then the risk would have been covered, but as the risk was not covered regarding the premises namely the factory where theft had taken place, the claim of the complainant firm could not be accepted. For the foregoing reasons the Opponent Oriental Insurance Company contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opponent and so the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.

            Learned Consumer Commission, Akola, then recorded evidence adduced by the Complainant as well as by the Opponent. After appreciating the documentary evidence on record learned District Consumer Commission came to the conclusion that the Opponent has committed Deficiency in service and allowed the complaint by judgement and order dated 19/11/2014. Against this judgement and order dated 19/11/2014 passed by District Consumer Commission, Akola, the present appellant/Opponent Oriental Insurance Company has come up in the present appeal.

           We have heard Shri. Rahate, learned advocate for the appellant. However, the Respondent and advocate for the Respondent remained absent. We have also gone through the documents which are placed on record. On the basis of the facts stated above, following points arise for our determination with our findings recorded against the same as under,

REASONS FOR FINDINGS

      At the outset, some admitted facts need to be stated. There is no serious dispute regarding the fact that the M/s Sadhumal Jotumal & Sons is a partnership firm having its office near Telephone exchange, old Cotton Market, Akola and factory at Rayli Jin, Akola and that the complainant had taken Money Insurance Policy for the period from 24/4/2012 to 23/4/2013. There is also no dispute that the said policy was in respect of cash which was kept in premises for payment of wages as well as for business. There is also no serious dispute that there was house breaking and theft of cash had taken place in the factory at Rayli Jin, Akola where the locker of the firm was installed.  Complainant has placed on record a copy of the report regarding theft lodged by Mr.Manish Motwani in Police Station. If we go through the copy of the complaint, the same shows that the theft of cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, had taken place which were kept in the locker in the premises of their factory at Rayli Jin, Akola. On the basis of the report lodged by Mr.Motwani, crime was also registered by Ramdaspeth Police Station, vide Crime No.93/2012 on 29/6/2012. From the contents of the police report, it becomes clear that the theft of cash had taken place from the factory premises of the complaint firm. After the theft had taken place, the present complainant had also lodged a claim on the basis of the Money Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- but the Opponent Insurance Company repudiated the claim by issuing the letter on 29/6/2012. If we go through the contents of this repudiation letter, the Insurance claim was repudiated on the sole ground that as per the insurance policy, the risk regarding theft of cash was covered only in respect of the premises of registered office of M/s Sadhumal Jotumal & Sons near Telephone exchange, old Cotton Market, Akola, and not in respect of the locker which was kept in the premises of the said factory at Rayli Jin, Akola.

              Now, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted by Shri.Rahate, learned advocate for the Appellant that the Learned District Consumer Commission, Akola has not properly appreciated the documents filed on record and has not taken into consideration the fact that according to the contents of the Money Insurance Policy taken by the Complainant firm, the risk was covered only for the cash which was kept in safe in the locker at premises of registered office of M/s Sadhumal Jotumal & Sons  near Telephone exchange, old Cotton Market, Akola, and not in respect of the  locker which was kept in the premises of the said factory at Rayli Jin, Akola.

                  In view of the aforesaid submissions, it has become necessary necessary to turn to the contents of the Money Insuance Policy No.18220/48/213/501. If we carefully go through the cover note of the said policy, it clearly shows the risk details which are covered under Section 1(a) to Section 1(d). If we go to section 1 (a) of the Insurance policy, the same clearly speaks about the cash which is kept at the premises of the insurer and the same reads as under..

      “Money for the payment of wages, salaries and other earning or for petty cash in direct transit from the bank to the Insured’s premises from the time the cash is received at the bank by the insured or the authorised emnployee/s of the insured until delivered at the premises or other place of disbursement and whilst there until paid out provided that out of business hours such cash shall be secured in locked safe or strong room on the premises. Cheques drawn by the insured to provide for such cash are covered in transit from the premises to the bank. “

                 From bare reading of the aforesaid section 1(a), it becomes apparent that the cash kept at the premises of the insured was duly covered by the Insurance policy. It is argued by Shri.Rahate, learned advocate for the Appellant that the risk was covered only in respect of the cash kept at the Registered Office premises of the complainant firm situated near Telephone exchange, old Cotton Market, Akola, and the complainant had also given address of its office premises as Rayat Haveli, Old Cotton Market, Tilak Road, Akola.  However, if we go through the copy of the Money Insurance Policy, the same does not at all draw any distinction between Office premises and factory premises of the complainant firm and so no such inference can be drawn that as per the Insurance Policy, only the risk was covered for the cash kept in the locker at office premises and not at factory premises. On the other hand, the Money Insurance Policy itself speaks that cash kept at any places mentioned in Section 1(a) as well as cash in the personal custody of the insured or when it is in transit was also covered as per Section 1(b) 1(c) and 1(d). In view of the above discussion, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the Appellant that risk of the cash in safe at factory premises was not covered or that the learned District Consumer Commission, Akola has committed any error on this count. Secondly, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the Appellant that though there was actual theft of Rs.1,50,000/- as per the case of the Respondent/complainant as mentioned in the FIR, the learned District Consumer Commission had awarded a sum of Rs.2,20,666/-. We are unable to accept this contention also as in the present case, the complainant had paid premium of Rs.17,495/- for much higher amount and the risk was covered to the extent of Rs.2 lac. As such, this contention also cannot be accepted.

         In the light of the aforesaid discussions we are unable to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant and so we feel that the appeal is devoid of any substance and as such we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

i.      Appeal is hereby dismissed.

ii.     Appellant to bear his own cost as well as cost of Respondent.

iii.    Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.