ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
This consumer complaint refers to alleged deficiency in service on the part of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’ for the sake of brevity) for arbitrarily repudiating the insurance claim.
[2] Undisputed facts are that the Complainant Company, Tops Detectives and Security Services Ltd., had taken an insurance cover under the Money Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company for the period 6/3/1995 to 5/3/1996. Policy covered three risks as under:-
“
| SECTION-I | LIMIT OF ANY ONE LOSS |
A. | 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 strongroom on the premises. Cheques drawn by the Insured to provide for such cash are covered in transit from the premises to the bank. | `2,50,000/- |
B. | Money other than described in A above in the personal custody of the Insured or the authorized employee/s of the Insured whilst in direct transit between the premises and the bank or post office | `2,50,000/- |
C. | Money other than described in A and B above collected by and in the personal custody of the Insured or the authorized employee/s of the Insured whilst in transit to the premises or bank within a period not exceeding 48 hours from the time of collection | `2,50,000/- |
”
[3] ‘Money’ to which above-referred cover is offered is defined as under:-
“Money shall mean and include Cash, Bank Drafts, Currency Notes, Treasury Notes, Cheques, Postal Orders and Current Postage Stamps.”
[4] The insurance cover/risk for ‘money’ is further controlled by exclusion clauses mentioned thereunder. Relevant exclusion clauses read as under:-
“EXCLUSIONS:- The Company shall not be liable in respect of
1. .....
2. .....
3. Loss of money where the Insured or his employee is involved as principal or accessory, except loss due to fraud or dishonesty of the cash-carrying employee of the insured, occurring whilst in transit and discovered within 48 hours.
.....”
[5] As far as ‘Fraud’ is concerned, it reads as under:-
“FRAUD: If any claim under this policy shall be in any respect fraudulent or if any fraudulent means or device are used by the Insured or any one acting on the Insured’s behalf to obtain any benefit under this policy, all benefits and rights under the policy shall be forfeited.”
[6] In the instant case, it is alleged by the Complainant that one of its employees Mr. M. S. Kannan forged the cheques drawn for the purpose and for the use of Karur Branch of the Complainant and said Mr. M. S. Kannan misappropriated the amounts. On detecting the same by another employee, Mr. M. M. Sunil, Regional Manager of the Complainant at Bangalore, a FIR was lodged on 24/2/1999 and the Insurance Company was informed about the same by a letter dated 3/3/1999. Insurance claim was made accordingly. However, the insurance claim stood repudiated by a letter dated 20/8/1999 on the ground that the event on the basis of which the claim is made is not covered by the insurance policy. Being aggrieved by such repudiation the Complainant preferred this complaint.
[7] Heard Adv. M. G. Barve on behalf of the Complainant and Adv. S. R. Singh on behalf of the Opponent.
[8] The letter of repudiation clear refers to the exclusions and further to the fact that limited cover of risk on account of fidelity and/or fraud of an authorized employee occurring while in the transit and discovered within 48 hours was offered. However, since the case of the Complainant does not fall within that exception and no insurance cover was offered to the event referred above, Insurance Company informed to the Complainant accordingly and repudiated the claim. We find on the basis of terms of the insurance policy to which reference is made earlier and brought to our notice; clearly, the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company cannot be faulted with. Thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company could be inferred. Hence, finding the complaint without any substances, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
The complaint stands dismissed.
Complainant shall bear his own costs and shall pay costs of `5,000/- to the Opponent.
Pronounced on 05th March, 2013
