18.03.16

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

None is present on behalf of the appellant.  Sh. M.K. Kohli, Advocate is present on behalf of respondent.  On the last date also, none was present on behalf of the appellant.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 105 of 2002, whereby the consumer complaint filed by the appellant – complainant was dismissed.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant – complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum against The New India Assurance Company Limited, stating therein that on 06.09.2001 at about 5:15 p.m., when the son of the complainant after closing the sale was just ready to leave the godown premises with day sales amounting to        Rs. 60,332/- in cash, at that time, two intruders entered into the premises and robbed the cash on gun point.  An FIR was lodged to this effect.  The insurance policy was valid for the period from 06.07.2001 to 05.07.2002.  The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company, which was repudiated by the insurance company vide their letter dated 15.03.2002 on the ground that loss was not covered under the policy.

The consumer complaint was contested by the insurance company by filing written statement and it was pleaded that under the insurance policy, money during transit from godown to bank was covered and hence the claim was not payable.

Both the parties filed their evidence before the District Forum and the District Forum vide impugned order dated 27.08.2008 dismissed the consumer complaint on the ground that the loss took place within the premises and, as such, the same was not covered under the policy.  Aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

We have perused the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  It is an admitted fact, as has been mentioned in the consumer complaint itself, that the money was robbed from the complainant’s son within the godown premises and from the perusal of the cover note, it is evident that the money during transit was covered under the policy.  In the exclusion clause of the policy, it has been mentioned that the insurance company shall not be liable in respect of loss occurring on the premises, after business hours, unless the money is in a locked safe or strongroom.  The money was robbed from the complainant’s son within the premises and the same was not in a locked safe or strongroom.  Therefore, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum.  The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.  No order as to costs.