SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The case of the complainant is that he along with his wife went to Chottanikkara temple on 26-2-2002 in his car bearing registration No. KRQ 6989.  He parked his vehicle after locking its doors and went to the temple for worship.  When they returned to the spot, the vehicle was not seen and found that the same was stolen.  He kept 8 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 2300/- in the car on fear of pickpockets and thieves.  This gold and cash was also lost.  He was a holder of house holders insurance policy during the relevant period for a sum assured of Rs. 43000/-.  Complainant preferred a claim but the same was not processed or honoured till this date.  Hence this petition filed.

2. Opposite party filed version stating that the policy is admitted. But they disputed that cash is not covered under the policy.  The value of the gold as per the statement of the complainant is only for Rs. 24000/-.  They were not repudiated or allowed the claim.  Hence the compliant is premature.

3. Petitioner filed 5 documents and marked as Exts. A1 to A5.  Examined the petitioner as PW1.  Opposite party filed 5 documents and marked as Exts. B1 to B5 and examined one witness as RW1.

4. The complainant filed FIR on the same day stating that his vehicle was stolen and in that vehicle gold for a value of 24000/- and cash for Rs. 2300/- was kept in and the same was also lost.  The insurance company is also not disputing this fact.  But they contended that cash is not covered under the policy.  The claim of the complainant is that it comes within the category of personal baggage.  On going through the policy it can be seen that Rs. 43000/- is the assured amount for Jewell’s and Rs. 2000/- for personal baggage.  We have thoroughly gone through the terms and conditions of the policy and it was inferred that cash will not come within the purview of baggage.  Baggage means personal articles carried at the time of journey such as dress, spectacle, cosmetic goods etc.  Cash can be considered as only a valuable and in the eye of law it is a promissory note.  Hence loss of cash is not covered under the policy.  The insurance company has no dispute with regard to the loss of 8 sovereigns of gold worth about 24000/- on the date of loss.  They also admitted that they were not repudiated or allowed the claim.  As per the regulations of IRDA insurance company shall process the claim with in a specified period and intimate the result to the consumer.  But opposite party has not made any thing within the specified period.  This itself is a deficiency of service.  The complainant has not adduced any evidence showing that they have a loss of Rs. 43000/-.

5. In the result complaint allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 24000/- with 12% interest from the date (4-3-2002) of claim.  Petitioner is also entitled to get cost of Rs. 3000/-.  Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 24000/- with 12% interest from 4-3-2002 and cost of Rs. 3000/- within one month from the date receipt of this order.  Petition allowed.

Pronounced in open Forum, on this the 22^nd day of March 2010.

Sd/-  Sri. Jimmy Korah:

Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:

// True Copy //

                                                                                    By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.

Typed by:- vo/-

Compared by:-