Order No.                 .

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that the complainant’s company obtained a “Money in Transit” policy being policy no.512902/48/09/07/00000396 11 on payment of premium of an amount of Rs.22,667/- having coverage of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs for a period from 10^th September, 2009 to 9^th September, 2010 and by obtaining such policy complainant hired the insurance service of the OP and so, complainant is a consumer.

          It is further asserted by the complainant that during continuance of the said policy the employee of the complainant Shri Saheb Roy, whose duty was to deliver stocks, such as mobile recharge coupon etc. and to collect payment from the retailers, drew Airltel Recharge Coupons and Easy Recharge Mobile Coupon from the office of the complainant and left the office of the complainant to distribute the same at the shops situated under Dum Dum Police Station within the local limit being the area conferred for distribution of business of the complainant and on that day the said employee of the complainant had lifted from the office of the complainant company the aforesaid materials worth Rs.80,0000/- for distributing and/or selling the same to the various retailers under the complainant company.

          During performance of the said employee of the complainant visited various shops and retailers and sold the aforesaid coupons to those retailers and received money from them and finally the said employee of the complainant visited at about 13-45 hrs. Mili Communication situated at Sukumar Ali Molla and taking last payment from there he was proceeding towards Durganagar and while cycling he was intercepted by a group of unknown miscreants being 3 in number on a motor cycle who snatched away the bag containing cash and easy recharge coupon worth Rs.80,000/- from the said employee of the complainant and fled away on their motor cycle who snatched away the bag containing cash and easy recharge coupons worth Rs.80,000/- from the said employee of the complainant and fled away on their motor cycle.  In the aforesaid process the said employee of the complainant also received some injuries and for the said injuries he was treated at NANNA BPHC hospital under Government of West Bengal and matter was reported to the Dum Dum Police Station on the basis of said written complaint a Case No.337 of 2009 u/s.379 IPC was initiated and after investigation police submitted FRT as miscreant could not be traced out and stolen goods were not recovered but police officer submitted that it was a fact and that incident was true.  As per statement of the employee of the complainant said employee submitted that total loss was Rs.80,000/- and he reported it to police station.  Subsequently, complainant submitted a statement of claim to the Branch Manager of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Kolkata claiming the money lost in transit in terms of the policy of the complainant vide a letter dated 28-11-2009 along with FIR, which was received by the OP3 on 07-12-2009 but peculiar fact is that the complainant even after that and despite submitting his claim the OP did not proceed to resolve the claim even after 8 months of such submission of claim and virtually neglected to dispose of the claim of the complainant.

          Finding no other alternative complainant wrote a letter on 30-07-2010 to the General Manager of OP1 and then another letter on 10-08-2010 addressing to the OP3 requested to look into the matter and disposing his matter.  After they made several approaches for disposal and ultimately on 11-003-2011 OP repudiated the claim by closing the claim as “no claim” stating that based on survey report “the place of occurrence of mishap of cash/money etc. not come within the scope of the said policy.  Police also did not put section of snatching in FIR”.

          Fact remains that taking about 18 months the complainant was ultimately reported that the claim is arbitrary in nature and for which the complainant has prayed for release of the claim amount and also for compensation.  Fact remains in this case Insurance Company submitted written version on 14-08-2012 and ultimately submitted that, in fact, cash cards were stolen with cash and since cash cards are not within the purview of risk coverage so the claim was not payable.

          It is further submitted in support of the above incident insurance company appointed loss valuer and surveyor who investigated the same and asked the complainant to file certain documents i.e. appointment letter, salary slip of Saheb Roy from whose custody alleged cash cards etc. was stolen and insured did not submit the same.  Further from the FIR it would be found that in the FIR there was no mention that what was the exact amount of cash which was stolen but total loss was noted Rs.80,000/- i.e. enclosed cash and cash cards.  Moreover, the cash is only covered by the policy not cash card and for which the surveyor did not submitted report and that was accepted and, thereafter, on the basis of the report of the surveyor’s claim was repudiated and for which the present claim is not maintainable.

Decision with Reasons

After considering the argument of the complainant and also considering the documents as filed by the complainant and also the written version of the OP including surveyor’s report etc. it is found that FIR was lodged on 05-01-2009 at Dum Dum P.S. and from FIR it was found that it was submitted by Saheb Roy who claimed as salesman of the complainant and he stated that some miscreants snatched away his bag in which cash and cash cards which were stolen but he failed to say the details of the cash and it is also proved from the document that FRT was submitted by police on 23-12-2009 and that was accepted by the Ld. Court. 

          No doubt complainant submitted claim in respect of Rs.80,000/- but his claim was repudiated on 11-03-2011 stating that the claim was repudiated on the basis of the surveyor’s report and fact remains complainant failed to give details of the cash which was stolen and also failed to give any appointment letter and salary sheet of Saheb Roy whom the complainant claimed as his one employee.

          No doubt, after consulting the entire case record and date of repudiation on 11-03-2011 it is found that this complaint was filed on 30-04-2012 i.e. within time from date of repudiation.

          Fact remains complainant has failed to prove that Saheb Roy the claimed employee of the complainant failed to say the figure of loss of money and figure of loss of cash card and, in fact, as per insurance policy only cash is covered by said policy but not cash card.  Complainant was asked to file the status of Saheb Roy as an employee of the complainant but he also did not submit any such report and documents in support of his appointments as Sales Representative and also his salary sheet that Biswajit Basu, Surveyor sent so many letters to the complainant.   Moreover, in the FIR there is no detail of loss of money and loss of cash card.  At the same time from the final report of the surveyor it is proved that surveyor failed to collect the necessary documents as required from the complainant and complainant failed to prove the status of Saheb Roy as an employee of the complainant and also failed to produce any document what was the actual amount in the said bag which was snatched away from the employee and for non-submission of the same practically surveyor submitted that complainant violated terms and condition of the policy and not only that complainant did not submit the required documents and materials as required by the surveyor so no doubt complainant did not perform his particular performance as per contract and fact remains cash card is not covered by the Insurance Policy and as per terms and condition of the policy but that is not also disclosed in the FIR or not even it was submitted by supportive document to the surveyor.  Then how the insurance company shall have to dispose of the matter and fact remains there was laches on the part of the complainant for which the claim was repudiated for want of valid documents and particularly the status of Saheb Roy alleged employee of the complainant.  Then we are convinced to hold that practically there was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the insurance company in repudiating the claim but on the contrary we have gathered that complainant had no desire to get the insurance claim for which he did not submit required documents and particularly the appointment letter and monthly salary of Saheb Roy to prove his status as employee of the complainant.

          After assessing the entire record and also the report of the surveyor and the letter of repudiation as made by the OP we are confirming that complainant has failed to prove by cogent documents or materials that there was laches on the part of the OPs.  On the contrary, laches on the part of the complainant is proved so we have nothing to do but dismissed the complaint. 

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without cost.