(Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President) (1) This appeal is directed as against the order passed in Consumer Complaint No.162/09 on 30/03/2010 by the District Forum, Nashik. The District Forum, Nashik has allowed the complaint partly and directed the appellant to pay within 30 days from the date of order an amount of `1,27,328/- as the claim of insurance with interest @ 9% p.a. from 09/07/2009. The District Forum has further directed to pay `7,500/- towards mental agony and `1,000/- towards the cost of the complaint. (2) The original complainant is a respondent in the appeal while the original opponent is the appellant before this State Commission. The appellant is an Insurance Company. (3) The complainant has taken insurance of ‘safe’ from the opponent for an amount of `8 lakhs. According to the complainant, he has kept `1,27,328/- in the said safe on 06/11/2007 and on the next day, it was found by its employee, Indrajeet Yuvraj Bhalerao that the safe was found broken and the theft had taken place. Accordingly, the complaint was lodged. Since, the theft had taken place; the insurance claim was lodged with the insurance company. The said claim was not accepted by the insurance company and therefore, the consumer complaint was lodged. The forum partly allowed the claim as recounted earlier and feeling aggrieved thereby, the insurance company preferred this appeal. (4) It is not in dispute that there was money insurance policy as stated by the complainant. The fact of the theft is not disputed. Now, the learned counsel of the insurance company fairly concedes that the grounds for the rejection of the claim are not justifiable. The learned counsel, Adv.Shenoy, however submitted that grant of relief of beyond the outer limit of the insurance cover was not permissible. He has relief upon Sec.IA in respect of liability of cash in transit up to `50,000/- and therefore, the submission that Forum had to allow `50,000/- only. Therefore, the order be modified. Further, the direction to pay `7,500/- and cost may be set aside. (5) The relevant portion from the policy reads as under :- Section IA – Money for the payment of wages, salaries and other earning or for petty cash in direct transit from the bank to the Insured’s premises from the time the cash is received at the bank by the Insured or the authorized employee/s of the Insured until delivered at the premises or other place of disbursement and whilst there until paid out provided that out of business hours such cash shall be secured in locked safe or locked strong room on the premises. Cheques drawn by the insured to provide for such cash are covered in transit from the premises to the Bank. The limit of any one loss is specified at `50,000/-. (6) Thus, for the case in transit while, out of the business hours was kept in a safe, the outer limit for granting insurance claim is 50,000/-. On the contrary, the Forum awarded `1,27,328/- beyond that limit and thus, the Forum has committed an error. Here, the Forum passed an order unsustainable in law in view of the condition of the policy. (7) However, we are not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that `7,500/- in respect of mental agony and `1,000/- cost of the complaint be waived off. (8) For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and pass the following order. ORDER (1) Appeal is partly allowed. The order directing `1,27,328/- with 9% p.a. interest from 09/07/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside and instead we are directing to the appellant to pay `50,000/- by way of insurance claim with interest @9% p.a. from 09/07/2009 to the respondent/original complainant till the date of realization of the amount. So far as the appeal challenging the amount of `7,500/- and cost of `1,000/- is concerned, it stands rejected and dismissed and order passed by the District Forum regarding `7,500/-in respect of mental agony and `1,000/- cost of the complaint is confirmed. Under the circumstances, no costs of the appeal. Pronounced on 30th June, 2011. pgg |
