BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.230-14

Date of Institution:22-04-2014

Date of Decision:01-04-2015  

M/s. R.S.K. & Co., 1666/1, Gali Karmo, Katra Jaimal Singh, Amritsar through its Proprietor Mrs. Pooja Khanna

Complainant

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Officer II, Court Road, Amritsar through its Divisional Manager/Incharge

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Pawan Bhardwaj, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.S.K.Davessar, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant obtained insurance policy bearing No.401900/48/12/7600000236 from the Opposite Party for the period from 23.4.2012 to 22.4.2013 covering various actions as detailed in the Schedule with cash in transit per annum amount of Rs.10 crores. Subsequently, the sum insured in transit has been enhanced vide endorsement No.401900/48/12/76/83 000001 dated 29/5/2012 from Rs.10 crores to Rs.20 crores and extra premium charged Rs.10534/- from the insured vide said endorsement and all other terms and conditions remain same. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is clearly mentioned that “ the premium in so far it relates to cash-in-transit is to be regulated by the amount of such money in transit during  each period of insurance and for this purpose a proper record shall be kept in the books of the insured which the insured shall at all times allow the company to inspect. Within one month from the expiry of each period of insurance, the insured shall furnish the company with account of the amount of all such money in transit during the period and if the accounted amount shall differ from the estimated amount on which premium has been paid. The difference in premium shall be met by a further proportionate payment to the company or by a refund to the insured, as the case may be, but in no case shall the refund be more than 50% of the premium stated in the schedule and retention of premium shall not be less than the minimum of Rs.500/-. The complainant is working as commission agent by issuing the cheques and drafts in lieu of cash received  from various merchants/ traders from the market and charge commission from the same and running the same  business for the last 7-8 years. The insurance policy contains various sections of coverage. The complainant has options to get insurance cover on all the  sections or selected section. The said insurance policy is covering the risk of money insurance on currency notes of all denomination and/ or  styles whilst in transit from insured above noted address to insured various banks within a radius of 3 KM from insured above noted address office. The premium is based upon the amount and sections opted. The complainant used to deposit sale proceeds of cash in bank (J & K Bank) Shastri Market Branch, Amritsar on daily basis during the cash hours. On 24.9.2012 at about 11.30 AM, Prem Khanna Accountant alongwith Rajan Shamra, Clerk of the complainant concern had gone to Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Shastri Market, Amritsar in order to deposit the cash of Rs.41 lacs and at that time, some unidentified persons committed robbery in the day light  by using deadly weapons and  caused grievous heart and attempted to cause death of Rajan Sharma by firing of gun shot with their pistol and Rajan Sharma suffered gun shot injuries on his right shoulder and right thigh and this act of  said culprits caused grievous heart and they attempted to cause death. The above said culprits made robbery of Rs.41 lacs by using deadly weapons. In this regard, FIR No. 188 dated 24.9.2012 u/s 394/34 IPC read with section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered at P.S. ‘E’ Division, Amritsar and the complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party and even in this regard subsequently a written letter dated 3.10.2012 was also submitted to the Opposite Party by hand. The complainant lodged the claim with the Opposite Party vide letter dated 3.10.2012 and all the requisite documents i.e. copy of FIR, copy of survey report, copy of investigation report, claim form ad other required claim documents were submitted to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26.3.2014. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.15 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that  in this case N.Kumar Surveyor Private Limited was deputed as surveyor by the Opposite Party and the said surveyor after making thorough survey of controversy in question submitted survey report dated 29.8.2013 and  calculated the actual cash in transit from 23.4.2012 to 25.6.2012 and as such, he recommended the Opposite Party that the insurer is not considered liable for this loss and Nil liability was recommended. Said surveyor also submitted addendum report dated 17.1.2014 and even in the same very addendum report the surveyor assessed net loss to the tune of Rs.5,35,000/- as the total liability as single carrying limit was Rs.15 lacs and the cash recovered was deducted to the tune of Rs.9,65,000/- and as such, net loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.5,35,000/- and the surveyor submitted that being cash in transit loss  application of under insurance is not specified as the single carrying limit is  specified and in respect thereof loss was assessed, however, the surveyor submitted that the risk had already expired on 25.6.2012.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.R.L.Mehta, DM Ex.OP1 alonwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5.  We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant firm obtained insurance policy bearing No. 401900/48/12/7600000236 for the period from 23.4.2012 to 22.4.2013 from the opposite party covering various actions as detailed in the schedule of the policy for cash in transit per annum amount of Rs. 10 crores. Subsequently the sum insured in transit has been enhanced vide endorsement No. 401900/48/12/76/83000001 dated 29.5.2012 from Rs. 10 crores to Rs. 20 crores on payment of extra premium Rs. 10,534/- with all terms and conditions remain same. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the premium in so far it relates to cash in transit is to be regulated by the amount of such money in transit during each period of insurance and for this purpose the proper record shall be kept in the books of the insured. If the accounted amount shall differ from the estimated amount on which premium has been paid, the difference in premium shall be met by a further proportionate payment to the company or by a refund to the insured. The complainant firm further alleged that complainant firm is working as commission agent has been running the business for the last 7-8 years. The insurance policy in question is covering the risk of money, insurance on currency notes of all denomination and/or styles while in transit from the insured above noted address to insured various banks within a radius of 3 KM. The complainant firm used to deposit sale proceeds of cash in J & K Bank, Shastri Market Branch, Amritsar on daily basis. On 24.9.2012 at about 11.30 AM, Prem Khanna, Accountant of the complainant firm alongwith Rajan Sharma, Clerk , had gone to J& K Bank, Shastri Market, Amritsar in order to deposit the cash of Rs. 41 lacs and at that time some unidentified persons committed robbery in the day light by using deadly weapons and caused grievous heart and attempted to cause death of Rajan Sharma by firing of gun shot with their pistol and Rajan Sharma suffered gun shot injuries on his right shoulder and right thigh . He was admitted in hospital and was medically treated/ operated upon. Resultantly FIR No. 188 dated 24.9.2012 u/s 394/34 IPC and section 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered at P.S. “E” Division, Amritsar. Opposite party was also immediately informed orally and through written letter dated 3.10.2012 Ex.C-2. Opposite party appointed Sh. N.Kumar Surveyors Pvt. Ltd as surveyor to go into the details of the occurrence. The complainant supplied all the relevant documents to the said surveyor. The said surveyor came to the conclusion that for quantum purposes the loss is assessed at Rs. 31,35,000/- and adjusted to Rs. 11,46,951/- only due to under insurance. Later on, the police, after investigation has recovered only Rs. 9,65,000/- from the culprits, as such a sum of Rs. 31,35,000/- has been lost by the complainant. The claim was lodged with the opposite party but the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant firm on flimsy ground vide letter dated 26.3.2014 Ex.C5. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that on receipt of the information from the complainant, opposite party appointed N.Kumar Surveyors Pvt.Ltd to go into the details of the occurrence. The said surveyor after making thorough survey of the controversy in question, submitted survey report Ex.OP7 and reported that the actual cash in transit from 23.4.2012 to 25.6.2012 had been calculated at Rs.2004.10 lac and the risk had already expired on 25.6.2012 and as such recommended the opposite party that the insurer is not liable for this loss and Nil liability was recommended. The said surveyor also submitted addendum report dated 17.1.2014 Ex.C-6 and through this addendum report the surveyor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.5,35,000/- as the total liability as single carrying limit was Rs. 15,00,000/- and the cash recovered was deducted to the tune of Rs. 9,65,000/-. As such net loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 5,35,000/- and the surveyor submitted that being cash in transit loss application of under insurance is not applicable as the single carrying limit is specified and in respect thereof loss was assessed, however the surveyor submitted that the risk had already expired on 25.6.2012 as stated above and the addendum report dated 17.1.2014 Ex.OP6 is self explanatory. Opposite party further alleged that earlier the complainant was reluctant to furnish the documents to the surveyor well in time and in respect thereof letters dated 26.11.2012 Ex.OP9, 19.12.2012 Ex.OP10 and 15.1.2013 Ex.OP11 were written by the surveyor to the complainant. Even the opposite party has written letter dated 21.1.2013 Ex.OP8 to the complainant asking the complainant that surveyor is demanding the requisite papers/documents from the complainant for the finalization of the claim case of the complainant, but the complainant has not supplied the same to the surveyor. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant company obtained insurance policy bearing No. 401900/48/12/7600000236 Ex.C1 for the period from 23.4.2012 to 22.4.2013 from the opposite party covering various risks/factors as detailed in the schedule of the policy including cash in transit per annum amounting to Rs. 10 crores. Subsequently the sum insured in transit has been enhanced vide endorsement No. 401900/48/12/76/83000001 dated 29.5.2012 from Rs. 10 crores to Rs. 20 crores on payment of extra premium Rs. 10,534/- with all terms and conditions remain same. The said insurance policy is covering the risk of money insurance on currency notes of all denomination and/ or  styles whilst in transit from insured above noted address to insured various banks within a radius of 3 KM. The complainant submitted that  on 24.9.2012 at about 11.30 AM, Prem Khanna Accountant of the complainant concern  alongwith Rajan Shamra, Clerk of the complainant concern had gone to Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Shastri Market, Amritsar in order to deposit  cash  Rs.41 lacs, when some unidentified persons committed robbery by causing grievous heart to Rajan Sharma who was admitted in the hospital where he was medically treated and operated. Consequently, FIR No. 188 dated 24.9.2012 u/s 394/34 IPC read with section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was registered at P.S. ‘E’ Division, Amritsar. The Opposite Party was also informed vide letter dated 3.10.2012 Ex.C2. Resultantly, the Opposite Party appointed Sh. N.Kumar Surveyors Pvt. Ltd as surveyor to look  into the details of the occurrence. Said surveyor after making the thorough survey of the controversy in question, submitted survey report Ex.OP7 and reported that the actual cash in transit from 23.4.2012 to 25.6.2012 had been calculated at Rs.2004.10 lacs i.e. more than Rs. 20 crores. As such, the risk had already expired on 25.6.2012 and as such, he recommended to the opposite party that the insurer is not liable for this loss and Nil liability was recommended. The said surveyor also submitted addendum report dated 17.1.2014 Ex.C-6. However,  through this addendum report, the surveyor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.5,35,000/- as the total liability as single carrying limit was Rs. 15,00,000/- and the cash recovered was deducted to the tune of Rs. 9,65,000/-. But as the risk of covering Rs.20 crores in transit has already expired on 25.6.2012, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the Opposite Party.
9. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the policy in question originally covers risk of money in transit to the extent of Rs.10 crores from the insured premises to insured bank premises, which was later on got enhanced by the complainant vide endorsement No. 401900/48/12/76/83000001 dated 29.5.2012 from Rs. 10 crore to Rs. 20 crores on payment of extra premium Rs. 10,534/- from the insured with all terms and conditions remain same. So, it stands fully proved on record that sum insured in transit has been covered under this policy upto the extent of Rs. 20 crores only and the complainant has exhausted the risk on 25.6.2012 as per survey report Ex.OP7.   The actual cash in transit from 23.4.2012 to 25.6.2012 had been calculated at Rs.2004.10 lacs. As such, the risk had already expired on 25.6.2012 whereas the present loss occurred to the complainant on 24.9.2012.
10.  The plea of the complainant that as per the policy if the accounted amount shall differ from the estimated amount on which premium has been paid, the difference in premium shall be met by a further proportionate payment to the company or by a refund to the insured. As such, the Opposite Party is liable  to compensate the loss occurred to the complainant regarding cash in transit, even it was beyond Rs.20 crores on further payment of premium to the company, is not tenable because this  clause means that the proper record shall be kept in books of account by insured and if the ascertained amount shall  differ from the estimated amount on which premium has been paid, the difference in premium shall be met by a further proportionate payment to the company or by a refund to the insured. Nowhere in the policy in question has been mentioned that the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant for loss regarding cash in transit more than Rs.20 crores. Had the plea of the complainant is valid, then why the complainant has got enhanced the risk of covering cash in transit from Rs.10 crores to Rs.20 crores vide endorsement No. 401900/48/12/76/83000001 dated 29.5.2012 on payment of extra premium Rs. 10,534/- from the insured with all terms and conditions remain same. The complainant could have got enhanced this amount from Rs.20 crores to above on payment of extra premium. But this was not done by the complainant. As such, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant has already exhausted its coverage of  risk of actual cash in transit upto Rs.20 crores during the period from 23.4.2012 to 25.6.2012 as the actual cash in transit during this period had been calculated at Rs.2004.10 lacs i.e. more than 20 crores. As such, the risk had already expired on 25.6.2012. So, the Opposite Party was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. 
11. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
12. Resultantly we hold that  the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 01-04-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                               Member