BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 16th day of March, 2012
C.C.No.102/2011
Between:
M/s Sree Lakshmi Venkateswara Enterprises,Represented by Its Owner Smt.A.Venkata Lakshmi,W/o A.Srinivasulu,
Balaji Complex, Shop No.1,Opp.Police Station, Main Road, Yemmiganur - 518 360, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Post Box No.6, M.M. Road, Adoni - 518 301, Kurnool District.
2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, D.No.40-383, Bhupal Complex, Park Road,
Kurnool - 500 001.
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri K.Vasantha Kurmar, Advocate for complainant and opposite party No.1 as called absent and Sri V.V.Augustine, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 102/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:-
- To pay a sum of Rs.2,95,750/- with occurred interest at 24% per annum from the date of incident, towards full and final settlement of claim ;
- To pay damages of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and costs;
- To grant such other relief which the Honourable Forum may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is running a Fertiliser and Pestisides shop in Yemmiganur Town since four years under the name and style of “Sree Lakshmi Venkateswara Enterprises”. The complainant obtained insurance policy bearing No.433101/48/2008/309 from opposite party No.1. The said policy was in force from 30-08-2007 to 29-08-2008. The said policy covers the risk of the cash in the shop. On 31-08-2007 the shop was closed after business hours by keeping an amount of Rs.2,95,780/- in the table drawer having lock. On 01-09-2007 at 6.00 A.M. Mr.Srikanth owner of the neighbouring oil shop informed the complainant that the shatters of the complainant shop opened. Some unknown offenders opened the shop and committed theft of cash of Rs.2,95,780/- kept in the table drawer. On the report given by A.Srunivasulu, Yemmiganur Police registered a case in Crime No.149/2007. The complainant informed about he theft of the cash to opposite party No.1 surveyor was appointed. The surveyor inspected the shop and submitted the report. The opposite parties 1 and 2 did not settle the claim of the complainant inspite of several demands. The opposite party finally referred the claim of the complainant as false. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 set exparte.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Opposite party No.1 is the insurer of the complainant’s cash under safe insurance policy bearing No.433101/48/2008/309. The said policy was in force from 30-08-2007 to 29-08-2008. On receipt of intimation about the theft, opposite party No.2 appointed a surveyor. The surveyor inspected the premises and reported to opposite party No.1 that the table drawer was opened in the shop of the complainant. The surveyor stated that the policy does not have the coverage for cash in the counter and the loss of amount left in the insured premises does not fall within the scope of the policy terms and conditions. The complainant suppressed the material facts and filed this case to gain wrongfully. The complainant ought to have kept the amount in a locked safe or a locked strong room. Loss of the money from the table drawer does not fall within the scope of the policy terms and conditions. As per the charge sheet allegation an amount of Rs.25,200/- was recorded from the offenders in C.C.No.6/2008 on the file of the Magistrate Court, Yemmiganur. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any amount.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and third party affidavits of Sri A.Srinivasulu and Sri E.Srikanth are filed. On behalf of the opposite party No.2 Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant is running a Fertiliser and Pestisides shop in Yemmiganur Town under the name and style of “Sree Lakshmi Venkateswara Enterprises”. The complainant obtained the original of Ex.A1 cash and safe insurance policy bearing No.433101/48/2008/309. The said policy was in force from 30-08-3007 to 29-08-2008. There is no dispute about the issuance the original of Ex.A1 policy by opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that on 31-08-2007 an amount of Rs.2,95,750/- was kept in table drawer in the shop and on the next day morning it was found that the said amount was committed theft by some unknown offenders. The complainant to establish that there was theft in the shop in the intervening night of 31-08-2007/01-09-2007, relied on Ex.A2 copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A3 charge Sheet in Crime No.149/2007 of Yemmiganur P.S. After receiving the information about the theft A.Srinivasulu husband of the Venkata Lakshmi gave report to police. The police after investigating the case filed the charge sheet in Crime No.149/2007 against to offenders. The opposite party No.1 also appointed a surveyor and the said surveyor filed his report. But for the reasons for better know the report of the surveyor is not marked. As seen from Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 it is very clear that there was theft of cash in the shop of the complainant on the intervening night of 31-08-2007/01-09-2007.
8. Admittedly the complainant made a claim and the said claim was referred by opposite parties as false stating that the loss money kept in a drawer is not covered by the policy. Opposite party No.2 filed Ex.B1 copy of the Money Insurance Policy under the said policy the insurer agreed to indemnify the insured against loss of money in transit by theft or any other fortuitous cause. In the exclusion clause it is mentioned that the company is not liable in respect of loss occurring on the premises after business hours, unless the money is in a locked safe or strong room. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 that insurance company is not liable loss of cash kept in a drawer in the shop of the complainant. Ex.A2 is the copy of the F.I.R. given by the husband of the proprietor of the complainant shop. It is stated in Ex.A2 that on 31-08-2007 he kept an amount of Rs.2,95,750/- in table drawer, locked it and went to his house after closing the shop. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the amount kept in the drawer is not covered by the policy. The company is liable to indemnify the insurer if the money kept in a locked safe or strong room was committed theft after business hours. It is not the case of the complainant that the amount was kept in a locked safe or strong room on 31-08-2007. The policy does not cover the theft of the amount left in the premises of the complainant. The complainant ought to have kept in the locked safe or strong room in order to have the benefit under the policy. The opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the loss money from the table drawer does not fall within the scope of the policy terms. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. On the other hand the complainant was negligent in keeping the amount in a table drawer in the shop. The opposite parties are justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for the reliefs.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 16th day of March, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Insurance Policy bearing
No.433101/48/2008/309.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of F.I.R in Crime No.149/2007
Yemmiganur P.S. Kurnool District, dated 01-09-2007.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.A4 Letter issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant
dated 03-06-2009.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Income Tax Statement
dated 31-03-2007.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Income Tax Department
Acknowledgment.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of Income Tax of complainant dated 21-01-2008.
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Form – C owner ship document
dated 08-08-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Money Insurance Policy bearing
No.433101/48/2008/309 along with
terms and conditions.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
