JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.7.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The Complainant, who is engaged in the supply of petrol/diesel through tankers, from Indian Oil Corporation Depot at Sangrur, to different cities, took a Liability Insurance Policy from the OP (now respondent)valid for the period from 4.7.2007 to 3.7.2008, in respect of vehicle No.CH03-S-1062. According to the Policy, the liability per event, was Rs.6,00,000/- and limit of liability per policy period, was Rs.6,00,000/-. On 15.5.2008, the complainant sent his aforementioned vehicle, with the driver, Ram Dev, to the Indian Oil Depot at Sangrur and 20,000 litres of diesel amounting to Rs.5,99,485.10 was loaded in the same(vehicle), which was to be supplied to the consignee M/s Senior Section Engineer (Diesel Gen.), Northern Railway, Ludhiana. However, en route four persons caught hold of the driver, drugged him and deloaded 20,000 litres of diesel. FIR No.120 dated 16.5.2008 was got registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the complainant lodged claim amounting to Rs.5,99,485.10paise with the OP but it, vide its letter, dated 26.9.2008, repudiated the same. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the OP, amounted to rendering of deficient service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be referred to as the Act only) was filed by it. 3. In reply, the OP admitted having issued the policy in question, in favour of the complainant, for the risks mentioned therein. It was also admitted that the complainant lodged a claim upon which, the OP appointed Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, to assess the loss. The said surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,99,485/-, but recommended that the claim of the insured was not maintainable, as the OP only undertook vide the policy, in question, to indemnify the insured/complainant, in case of loss or damage to the goods arising from the negligence of the carrier, or any of his agents or servants. It was further stated that, as per version of the complainant, it was a case of burglary/robbery, which was not covered, under the terms and conditions of the Policy. It was further stated that, as the claim of the complainant, was not covered, under the terms and conditions of the policy ,so it was rightly repudiated by the OP. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied, being wrong. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground, that the claim was not covered under the purview of the terms and conditions of the Policy, and, as such, there was no deficiency in rendering service by the OP, to the complainant. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the Complainant/ Appellant. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, as per terms and conditions of the Policy, the OP was bound to indemnify the appellant in case of loss or damage caused to the goods, on account of accident, or fire arising from the negligence of the carrier, or of any of his agents or servants. He further submitted that an ‘accident’ means ; a happening, an incident, an occurrence or an event. He further submitted that the accident has been defined as an unexpected event, happening without design, even though, there may be negligence on the part of workmen. He further submitted that in common parlance, an accident means a mishap or an untoward event, unexpected or undesirable. He further submitted that the driver of the vehicle stopped the vehicle, when a signal was given, by some persons, who were in the police uniform, who, in actuality, turned out to be fake and committed robbery of the diesel. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, robbery or burglary, could be termed as an accident i.e. an unexpected event, and, as such, was covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy. He further submitted that the District Forum was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion that the burglary/robbery could not be termed as an accident, being the result of negligence of the carrier, or its representative or servants. He further submitted that the District Forum, was thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the claim was rightly repudiated by the OP. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent/OP, submitted that since the loss or damage was caused due to burglary, it could not be termed as an accident, and, as such, was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy. He further submitted that no doubt, the surveyor appointed by the OP, came to the conclusion, that there was loss to the tune of Rs.5,99,485.10paise on account of burglary/robbery, yet, such a loss being not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. He further submitted that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the policy, and cannot go beyond the same. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. R-2 is copy of the insurance policy, which the complainant took. This insurance policy was known as ‘Carrier’s Liability Insurance Policy’ and it was valid for the period from 4.7.2007 to 3.7.2008, with respect to the goods to be transported in vehicle No. CH03-S-1062. The limit of liability, covered by this policy, is also not in dispute. There is also, no dispute, about the factum, that the burglary/robbery of 20,000 Ltrs of diesel from the said vehicle near Dhuri, took place on 16.05.2008. With a view to properly determine the controversy, as to whether, loss occurred on account of burglary/robbery falls under the terms and conditions of the Policy, it would be in the fitness of things, to extract the relevant portion thereof, which reads as under ; “Now this policy withesseth that during the currency of this policy or any further period for which it may be in force, subject to the limits, terms, provisions, exclusions, exceptions and conditions contained herein or endorsed herein or endorsed hereon the Company hereby agrees to indemnify the insured against his legal liability for actual physical loss of or damage to goods or merchandise directly caused by fire and/or accident to the vehicle registered under the No stated in the schedule whilst such goods or merchandise are actually transported in the said vehicle provided that fire or accident has arisen on account of negligence of the insured or negligence or criminal act of his servants and further provided that the vehicle is damaged by such fire or explosion or accident and a claim in respect thereof is admitted under the motor comprehensive insurance policy covering the vehicle”. 10. A perusal of the aforesaid abstract, of the policy, clearly goes to show, that if the loss or damage to the goods was caused directly by fire and/or accident to the vehicle registered when the goods were being transported therein, and that such fire or accident had arisen on account of negligence of the insured or criminal act of his servants, only then, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the insured, for such loss or damage. Robbery/burglary could not be said to be falling within the meaning of accident. Under these circumstances, the loss/damage caused to the property, in the instant case, did not fall under the terms and conditions of the Policy. No doubt, Sanjay Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who was appointed by the OP, gave his report Annexure R-3 dated 16.5.2008, came to the conclusion, that the loss caused to the property was to the tune of Rs.5,99,485.10paise, but at the same time, he indicated that the said loss/damage was not covered under the terms and conditions of the Policy. 11. As stated above, the insurance policy contains terms and conditions which are binding between the parties. They cannot travel beyond the same. Had the insurance policy been taken covering the loss or damage on account of burglary/robbery, the matter would have been different. Since the loss, in this case, was neither caused due to the accident, nor fire in the vehicle, nor there was any negligence or criminal act of the insured’s servants, the claim made by the complainant was, thus, rightly repudiated by the OP. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP, qua the complainant, nor it (OP) indulged into unfair trade practice. The order passed by the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5000/-. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
