Presented by Miss B.L.Dora, Member. <br /> In this case, the complaint petition reflects that, the Complainant is a Co-operative Society registered under Orissa Co-operative Societies Act-1962 , having it's register office At-Tamparsara, Po-Kadobahal, Dist-Bargarh, bearing the Registration No131, Bargarh Dt.26/06/1966. The Complainant Dasarathi Karna is working as Secretary of the S.C.S. presently.<br /> <br /> The Secretary is authorized by Board of Directors to the case vide resolution No.11 Dt.15/01/2009. The aim of the S.C.S. is for the welfare of members/farmers of that area to enhance it's business, there is Mini Bank at Kadobahal.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party, New India Insurance Company carrying on business all over India having a branch office also at Bargarh. The Complainant society used to carry huge sum of money from this office regularly to Godbhaga Bank and from Godbhaga Bank to it's office for official purpose. The Opposite Party issued a policy to the Complainant society bearing No.550901/48/08/07/00000129, covering the period from Dt.25/09/2008 to midnight on Dt.24/09/2009 agreeing to indemnify the Complainant against the risk for the loss of money in theft etc. during transit period from Tamparsara S.C.S. Mini Bank Ltd. Kadobahal to S.D.C.C. Bank Ltd. Godabhaga and vice versa.<br /> <br /> On Dt.03/10/2008, the Secretary of this society had drawn Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac)only from UCO Bank, Godbhaga and at the time of returning to his office at Temparsara the cash was stolen which kept in a leather bag and was under locked and key in his digge of motor cycle and could not be traced by him or by the police. The Secretary reported about this stolen to police as well as to the company. On receiving of intimation of theft the Opposite Party issued a claim form in favour of the Complainant and directed to apply it after filling it in order. So, the Complainant applied the same by giving details description asked in the application.<br /> <br /> But the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the ground that, money was carried from Godbhaga UCO Bank, not covered under the policy. Actually the policy issued to the Complainant covering 12(twelve) kilometers from the Tamparsara S.C.S. to Godbhaga and vice versa and the occurrence took place on the way which is within perimeter of the condition enumerated in the policy. The ground for repudiation by the Opposite Party is not genuine because the occurrence did not take place within the premises of UCO Bank area and it is after proceeding the bank area that to S.D.C.C. Ltd Bank are and both the Bank in a common route. The repudiation is arbitrary exercise of power and injustice.<br /> <br /> Hence, the case is filed on praying that, refund of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac)only to the Complainant for the amount lost in theft with interest from the date of loss at 18%(eighteen percent) per annum and Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac)only for physical harassment , injury and mental agony with cost of proceeding further relief due to the deficiency in service by the Opposite Party.<br /> In support of the Case, the Complainant has filed the following documents as follows:-<br /> <br /> Annexure-(1) The Original Policy of New India Assurance Company Ltd., No.550901/48/08/07/00000129, Annexure-(2) Copy of F.I.R. Bargarh, Police Station, Annexure-(3) Tamparsara service Co-Op. Society ltd., Annexure-(4)The New India Assurance Company Money Transit Claim Form No.63 Dt. 03/11/2008, Annexure-(5)Copy of Information, Annexure-(6)The disowned letter, Dt.01/12/2008 etc.<br /> <br /> In it's contest, the Opposite Party has filed his version denying the allegations,made against him in the Complaint petition on challenging the maintainability of the Case. The Surveyor report states that the transaction has done in a third place which does not cover under the Policy. Hence, as per version the claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite party as per the terms of the contract of insurance because the policy was issued to cover the money in transit from Tamparsara SCS{Mini Bank}Ltd., Kadobahal to SDCC Bank Ltd.,Godbhaga & vice versa. <br /> <br /> In order to strengthen his case, the Opposite Party has filed, the xerox copy of Insurance Policy bearing No. 550901/48/08/07/00000129 with conditions, Money in Transit claim form of the Complainant, survey report, Claim Assessment order of the Opposite Party Dt.01/12/2008 letter Dt.01/12/2008 issued to the insured disowning the liability for the assigned reason. <br /> <br /> Gone through the documents and petitions, filed by the parties concerned it is found out that,the theft of rupees 2,00,000/-{Rupees Two lac }which was drawn by the Secretary, Tampersara & the same was kept in a motor cycle digge ,has been stolen on the way while returning from Godbhaga to Tamparsara. The Complainant Society has been insured by the Opposite Party & the theft is held during the valid period of insurance. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant showing on the ground that it does not cover the Policy conditions. To counter this, the Complainant has filed Policy paper i. e. Annexre {ii} covering 12 k. from Tamparsara S.C.S. to Godbhsga and vice versa. Both the Parties have filed the documents of insurance policy in which the condition of money insured is, “on money in transit from Tamparsara S.C.S. (Mini Bank) ltd. Kadobahal to S.D.C.C.Bank Ltd., Godbhaga and vise verse” for a period commencing from Dt. 25/09/2008 to Dt. 24/09/2009. In accordance to the relied evidences in the shape of documents filed by both the Parties, the occurrence took place on the way, comes within the perimeter of the policy condition. It is obvious that, the distance is not disputed. But the money was withdrawn from UCO Bank Godbhaga does not comes under the policy condition.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party has filed a reported decision in this regard in AIR 2000 SC 10, between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vrs Samayanallur Primary Agricultural Co-op Bank where the Hon'ble Supreme Court have pointed out that, where the policy of insurance is clear and unambiguous, no interpretation to the contract is possible by any party or court.<br /> <br /> In view of these above discussions, we agree with the surveyor report which specifies that, the transaction of money was done in a third place is not covered under the policy condition.<br /> Hence, we found no deficiency in service to be impose on the Opposite Party and disallowed the Complaint.<br /> In these circumstances, the case is dismissed.<br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly<br /> No cost, Compensation.