JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The petitioner obtained a Banker Indemnity Policy from the respondent for the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011.  On 13.9.2010, the Branch Manager of Ambala Jattan in District Hoshiarpur was proceeding to the branch having withdrawn Rs.8.00 lacs from Punjab National Bank, Jalandhar Road when a theft of Rs.8.00 lacs happened.  The intimation of the theft was given to the insurer.  The claim however, was repudiated vide letter dated 17.6.2011 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

          “That the loss assessor Sh. Rajesh Gupta has recommended the claim as no Claim as officials of the Bank did not follow the set procedures in this regard.  Further condition No. 4(b) of the policy reads as ‘For cash in transit exceeding Rs.5.00 lacs and upto Rs.10.00 lacs one escort with fire arm shall be provided.”

          That as per the investigations report cash was being carried out without armed guard.  Therefore, on the basis of the above condition and also recommendation of the Loss assessor the claim is not payable.  Hence we have filed the claim as “NO CLAIM”.

2.      Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the respondents primarily on the ground that Condition No. 4(b) had been violated by the complainant since an armed security guard did not accompany the official who was carrying the cash.

4.      The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 04.8.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Commission, by way of this revision petition.

5.      The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the term issued to the bank required it to have an escort with fire arm for cash in transit, exceeding Rs.5.00 lacs and upto Rs.10.00 lacs.  The case of the petitioner is that no such clause was incorporate in the terms and conditions supplied to it by the respondent, whereas the case of the respondent is that the aforesaid condition formed part of the terms and conditions supplied to the petitioner at the time of issuance of the policy.

6.      When this petition came up for hearing on 20.2.2018, this Commission, noticing the controversy involved in the matter, directed as under:

          “The petitioner is directed to place on record the original insurance policy for the period in which the loss had happened, alongwith a supporting affidavit stating therein that no page of the said policy has been withheld by it within two weeks from today.  If the original policy was filed with the District Forum, the petitioner shall file an affidavit stating so and in that case, the record of the District Forum will be summoned by the Registry for the next date of hearing.  The respondent is also directed to place on record an office copy of the insurance policy for the period in which the loss had happened alongwith the terms and conditions attached to it within four weeks from today.  The said document shall be supported by an affidavit of the concerned Branch Manager stating therein that all those terms and conditions were duly sent to the complainant alongwith original insurance policy.”

7.      In compliance of the aforesaid order, the respondent insurer has placed on record the whole of the copy of the Banker Indemnity Policy issued to the petitioner, along with its terms and conditions.  The documents filed by the respondent are supported by an affidavit of Mr. Malkeet Singh, Branch Manager of the insurer.  The petitioner, on the other hand, has not filed the original insurance policy and it is stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner that the original policy along with its terms and conditions was given to the panel lawyer in the District Forum and got misplaced in his office.  However, neither the name of the panel lawyer has been disclosed in the affidavits nor the petitioner has filed any certificate or affidavit from the aforesaid counsel, certifying that the original policy along with the original terms and conditions was provided to him by the petitioner and was lost in his office.  The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the name of the advocate was one Mr. Harcharan Singh.  However, in the absence of an affidavit or a certificate from the panel advocate, the plea taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted.  I therefore, hold that the terms and conditions filed by the petitioner are not the whole of the terms and conditions provided to him by the insurer at the time of issuance of the policy and that the petitioner has deliberately withheld part of those terms and conditions so as to conceal clause 4(b) which required it to arrange one escort with fire arm with cash in transit exceeding Rs.5.00 lacs and upto Rs.10.00 lacs.  Even otherwise, there could be no reason for an officer of a Public Sector Insurance Company to file false affidavit since he does not stand to gain personally irrespective of the outcome of this litigation.  I therefore, hold that the petitioner was required to provide one escort with fire arm for cash in transit, exceeding Rs.5.00 lacs.  Since admittedly escort with fire arm was not accompanying the Branch Manager, carrying cash of more than Rs.5.00 lacs, there was breach of a mandatory term of the insurance policy on the part of the petitioner.  The repudiation of the claim therefore, was fully justified on account of the aforesaid breach.  The view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition is hereby dismissed, with no order as to cost.