Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/10/2013

SATYAM SALES PVT LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL, 5TH FLOOR,

ISBT, KASHMERE GATE: DELHI-110006

                                                                                      

No. DF(Central)/2015/                                                        Dated:

 

Complaint Case No. 10 of 2013                        

 

Satyam Sales (P) Ltd.

I-522, Beta II, Greater Noida

Distt, Gautam Budh Nagar

NOIDA                                                                                    Complainant

 

Versus

 

M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd.

7^th Floor, Hemkunt House

Rajendra Place,

NEW DELHI – 110 008.                                                Opposite Parties

ORDER

Complaint under  Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date

 

Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member

          Complainant had purchased a money insurance policy from the OP vide policy no. 360203/48/10/7600000546 against a premium of Rs.18,525/- for the period 1.6.2010 – 31.5.2011.  IT is alleged by the complainant that he had lodged a claim under the said insurance policy to the effect that their employees Mr. Supendra Singh and Sanjay Singh had taken Rs.4,02,400/- on 25.9.2010 for depositing in their bank.  However, at around 11.20 a.m. three persons on the point of knife and gun forcibly snatched away the bag containing the cash from these  employees and had fled away.  The matter was reported to the police as well as to the OP .  OP appointed M/s Atul Kapoor & Co. to survey and assess the loss.  It is alleged by the complainant that after collecting information and documents time to time surveyor submitted its report on 19.7.2011 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,02,400/- with an advice to appoint an investigator to know the exact amount recovered by police.

     It is further alleged by the complainant that he wrote several letters/reminder to the OP , but OP neither replied to the letters nor paid the claim amount to it  for more than one year.  Complainant received letter dated 5.10.2012 from the OP vide which they repudiated the claim under Exclusion Clause No. 3 of the policy.  

          The complainant protested the wrongful repudiation of the claim before the grievance cell of the OP on the ground that the OP has already collected an additional premium to cover the risk of infidelity of the employee and as such Exclusion clause 3 was not applicable in its case, but the grievance cell has failed to review the repudiation.  Hence this complaint.

          OP has contested the complaint and filed W.S.  It has denied any deficiency on its part. Para 2 of the preliminary objection of the W.S. is reproduced as under:-

2. That the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant after going through the claim file.  The opposite party observed that the claim would have been payable under the transit policy as the loss of cash has taken place in transit while the cash was entrusted to his employees.  But in the present case one of the insured’s employee Mr. Danish Azhar had planned the incident.  According to insured, Danish had already left the job but as per surveyor, the presence of Danish was marked till 24.9.2010. Th  erefore, the complaint falls under the Exclusion Clauses 3 of the Policy which reads as under:-

     Exclusion Clause 3

           “Loss of Money where the insured or his employee is involved as principal or accessory, except loss due to fraud or dishonesty of the cash carrying employee of the insured, occurring whilst in transit and discovered within 48 hours.”

     That it is pertinent to mention here that Danish would not fall in the second part of the exclusion. He was not cash carrying employee of the insured.  The employee, Danish was involved in the robbery of cash.  Police also recovered Rs.1,15,000/- from the four culprits, one of the culprit is Danish, insured’s employee.. Hence, the opposite Party is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant.

          Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

     We have heard arguments advanced at bar and have perused the record.

          Counsel for the OP has contended that the claim of the complainant had rightly been repudiated under Exclusion Clause 3 of the policy.  It is further contended by the counsel for the OP that the claim would have been payable under the transit policy as the loss of cash had taken place in transit while the cash was entrusted to the employees.  It is contended that in the present case one of the insured’s employee had planned the incident, hence the claim of the complaint fell under Exclusion Clause No. 3 of the policy “loss of money where insured or his employee is involved as principal or accessory, except loss due to fraud or dishonesty of the cash carrying employee of the insured, occurring whilst in transit and discovered within 48 hours.  The Ld. Counsel therefore prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.    

          The counsel for the complainant on the other hand alleged that loss of cash during transit as alleged in the complaint was covered by the policy and additionally, infidelity of the employee was also an insured peril hence loss of cash is fully indemnifiable under the “Money insurance policy” and does not attract exclusion clause NO. 3 of the policy as the OP had already charged an extra premium of Rs.270/- to cover the risk of infidelity.  It is further stated by the counsel for the complainant that after collecting all the information and documents from the complaint, surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,02,400/- and had advised the OP to consider the same only after the appointment of the investigator to confirm the exact amount recovered by the policy.  The investigator in his report had also confirmed that all the facts of the incident were true and had confirmed that Rs.1,00,000/- had been recovered from the accused.   It is further alleged by the counsel for the complainant that the OP had repudiated his claim on false and flimsy ground.

     The documents placed on record show that the OP had charged an additional premium of Rs.270/- from the complainant to cover infidelity of the employees.  This fact is not rebutted by the OP company in its W.S. as well as in evidence filed by it. 

    The OP knowing very well that besides transit loss, loss due to infidelity is also covered under the Policy had wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant under exclusion clause no. 3 of the policy, which was not at all applicable in the present case.

    Even otherwise, the record also shows that the employee involved in the incident had left the services of the complainant before the incident occurred.  The incident had occurred on 25.9.2010 whereas the employee involved in the crime Danish Azhar had left the service of the complainant on 24.9.2010.  In these circumstances we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under:-

1. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,02,400/-  Rupees Three Lac Two Thousand Four Hundred only )   (4,02,400 – Rs.1,00,000 recovered from accused) alongwith interest @ 10% from the date of filing of  complainant i.e. 30.1.2013 till payment.
2. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as a cost of litigation.

      The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  If the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

      Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................