1.                     This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 8.7.2009 passed in complaint case No.927 of 2009 : M/s. Fashion Shoppe Gallery Vs. National Insurance Company Limited.

2.                     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that it had taken an insurance policy for a period from 20.11.2005 to 27.11.2006, which covered  intgeralia the loss of cash lying in the premises of the complainant. It is averred that on the intervening night of 28/29.6.2006, a burgulary took place at the complainant premises in which cash of Rs.50,000/- was stolen from the safe/drawer. The matter was duly reported to the police and FIR No.183 dated 29.6.2006  was lodged with the Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a claim with the OP Insurance Company but the same was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that it was covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Alleging repudiation of the claim to be wrong and illegal, this complaint had been filed.

3.                     The learned District Forum before issuance of the notice to the other party perused Annexure C-1 i.e. insurance policy placed along with the complaint and found that as per the policy, money and valuables have been excluded from the cover of insurance. The learned District Forum has further recorded in the impugned order that the cash had been left in the shop in the evening by the complainant in a drawer, which was subsequently stolen and consequently, the claim was repudiated on the ground that cash was negligently left in the drawer of the front counter of the shop and thus, it was no claim under the policy. In this view of the matter, the learned District Forum had held the view that the complainant had failed to show that he was entitled to any compensation for the theft of the cash as alleged. Thus, it was held by the learned District Forum that there was no deficiency on the part of OP in treating the claim of the complainant “No Claim”, since the cash was not insured. Thus, finding no substance in the complaint, the same was dismissed in limine.

4.                     Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notice was sent to the respondent and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum concerned. Sh. H. C. Kaushal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate represented the respondent.

5.                     Sh. H. C. Kaushal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by mistake, a wrong insurance policy had been produced before the learned District Forum, which excluded the cash. He submitted that the actual insurance policy, which covers the loss of cash has now been placed as Annexure ‘B’ along with the appeal. He, therefore, emphatically submitted that the loss of cash was duly covered under the insurance policy now placed on file and that the factum of burglary has been admitted by the insurance company and thus, the complainant was entitled to be indemnified of his loss and therefore, he prayed that the appeal and the complaint be allowed.

6.                     Sh. Vinod Gupta, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the policy now placed as Annexure B with the appeal had not been placed before the learned District Forum.

7.                     We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8.                     The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the loss of cash is duly covered under the policy now placed on file. The issuance of this policy has not been rebutted by the counsel for the insurance company. A critical perusal of Section 2 of this insurance policy clearly indicates that the “policy covers cash other than described in Section 2(A) above whilst on the premises during business hours or whilst secured in locked safe or locked strong room on the insured premises out of business hours against the risk of burglary, housebreaking and holdup.”

9.                     Admittedly, the burglary took place at night. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was required to keep the cash in the premises during the period of night in a locked safe or locked strong room. However, in the present case, admittedly money had been left in the drawer of front counter of the shop. Thus, as per terms and conditions of the policy, since this cash had not been kept in a locked safe or in a strong room, the claim falls beyond the purview of the policy. Thus, we are in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating the claim as the cash had been negligently left in the drawer of the front counter of the shop and thus, the same was covered under the terms and conditions of the policy.

10.                   In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld being just, fair and legal. However, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

11.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

8^th February 2010.