BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.362 of 2015
Date of institution: 21.07.2015
Date of Decision: 15.03.2016
M/s. Glass Palace, Private Ltd., having office at # 43, Madhya Marg, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh through its Director Ajay Gupta.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, SCO No.46-47, Sector 54, Phase-2, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, SCO No.46-47, Sector 54, Phase-2, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Daljit Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Shri J.P. Nahar, counsel for the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant who is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 has filed the present complaint through its authorized representative, seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
- To pay a sum of Rs.6,70,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of cause of action i.e. 31.05.2014.
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
- to pay Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.
The complainant had taken a ‘Shopkeepers Insurance’ to cover up the risk against the stocks and other display material lying in its premises alongwith cash in transit, counter, safe etc. The complainant paid a premium of Rs.34,425/ for the insurance and the period of the policy was from 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014. On 31.05.2014 on the of the Executive of the complainant namely Lakhwinder Singh was handed over a cash of Rs.6,70,000/- for depositing it in the account of the complainant with the Canara Bank, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. The aforesaid Lakhwinder Singh was also asked to get the bank account passbook of the complainant updated from HDFC Bank Sector 8, Chandigarh. Lakhwinder Singh first went to HDFC Bank Sector 8, Chandigarh and when he visited the Canara Bank for deposit of cash, being Saturday the bank had closed its operation of banking. When said Lakhwinder Singh came back to the complainant, he found that the money was missing from the bag. Search was made but no positive clue came out. The matter was reported to the police and DDR No.54 dated 31.05.2014 was lodged in Police Station Sector 26, Chandigarh. The complainant immediately informed the OPs about the incident. The police, however, submitted the untraced report on 13.07.2014. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs on 20.11.2014 by submitting all the relevant documents with the claim form. However, the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 16.12.2014 on the ground that the complainant has failed to prove that the loss of cash is attributable to any accident or misfortune and the complainant has also failed to substantiate claim of Rs.6,70,000/- before the surveyor. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. The OPs in their written statement have pleaded that the story concocted by the complainant is false and not convincing. The surveyor Shri Sanjay Gupta after thorough investigation and due discussions came to the conclusion that the insured has failed to prove that the loss has been caused due to any accident or misfortune and on the recommendation of the surveyor the claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 16.12.2014. The claim is not payable as the reason for loss was not proved. It was also not proved as to how the figure of Rs.6,70,000/- was arrived at and for what exigencies the same was being deposited. Non registration of FIR by the police means that the police did not consider it a fit case of theft. Terming the repudiation of claim as per the terms and conditions of the police and denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainants proved on record affidavit of Ajay Gupta its Director Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-26.
4. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Tarsem Chand, their Manager Ex.OP-1/1 and of Sanjay Gupta Surveyor Ex.OP-1/2 and copies of documents Ex.OP1 to OP-3.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments filed by them.
6. The factum of ‘Shopkeepers Insurance’ policy for the period 31.10.2013 to 30.10.2014 is admitted between the parties. Clause-III (a) of the policy provides coverage of money in transit which is reproduced as under:
“Loss by accident or misfortune whilst the insured money is in his hands or in the hands of his employees in transit between any two places within a radius of 15 miles from the insured premises.”
7. As per the complainant, on 17.06.2014 his employee Shri Lakhwinder Singh on the instructions and directions of the complainant had gone to deposit a sum of Rs.6,70,000/- in cash from its office in Sector 26 Chandigarh to Canara Bank Sector 8, Chandigarh. On the way he was instructed to get the passbook updated from HDFC Bank Sector 8, Chandigarh. As per the complainant the employee instead of going directly to the Canara Bank Sector 8 Chandigarh for depositing cash, stopped at HDFC Bank for getting the passbook updated and by the time he reached Canara Bank Chandigarh at 12.30 PM the bank was closed. Therefore, the cash was not deposited. On his return journey instead of coming directly to the office with cash, he made another stoppage at Chabbel to drink water on the intersection of Sector 7 and 8 Chandigarh and then finally returned to the office. Upon reaching the office he found his bag opened and cash missing. Therefore, the complainant lodged a DDR with the police authorities and thereafter lodged a claim with the OPs under the terms of the policy. The OPs have repudiated the claim being violative of terms of the policy specifically stating that the policy covered the loss only whilst in transit between any two places whereas in the present complaint the employee took two stopovers from his premises to the Canara Bank during onward and return journey. Therefore, any loss occurred during the stopovers is not covered under the policy. The complainant has challenged the repudiation being unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as the stopover by the official of the company during transit from one business place to the bank is not malafide or pre-planned. As a prudent man the Executive of the complainant has chosen to get the pass book updated first from HDFC bank which is located prior to the location of Canara Bank Sector 8 enroute. Further the complainant says that he is a repeat customer of the insurance company and has not lodged the claim with any malafide intention but to recover the genuine claim.
8. The limited question for determination is whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant for loss of Rs.6,70,000/- in transit is as per terms of policy or not? In order to determine the issue, it will be appropriate to go into the terms of the policy and the relevant Clause-III (a) which has been reproduced above in Para No.6.
9. As per the OPs, the policy covered the cash in transit in the hands of insured or his employee, between any two places within a radius of 15 miles from the insured premises. As per the facts in hand, the employee of the complainant who was deputed from Sector 26 i.e. insured premises, to deposit the cash of Rs.6,70,000/- to Canara Bank Sector 8, Chandigarh instead of directly approaching from Sector 26 i.e. insured premises to the bank in Sector 8 Chandigarh, rather he took the money first to HDFC Bank and then to Canara Bank both in Sector 8, Chandigarh and stopped at a chabbel on the intersection of Sector 7 and 8, Chandigarh. Thus, the employee carrying the cash in transit involved more than one transit. The loss of cash occurred due to the negligence of the official of the complainant as it was his duty to carry the cash straightway to Canara Bank for deposit particularly when he was aware that being Saturday the banking hours are restricted to 12.00 noon only. Therefore, the policy does not cover the multiple transits and stopovers. The policy covers the accidental losses beyond the control of insured or his employees where the accident or misfortune is a proven fact. As per the counsel for the OPs the loss is not covered under the policy as the loss has occurred due to negligence of the employee of the insured. Therefore, as per the OPs the repudiation is legal and valid as per terms and conditions of the policy.
10. The complainant on the other hand has admitted the conduct of its employee i.e. multiple transits and stopovers from Sector 26 the insured premises to the Canara bank and return journey from Canara Bank Sector 8 Chandigarh to insured premises in Sector 26, Chandigarh. However, the complainant has denied the connivance of the insured or his employee in the loss of cash of Rs.6,70,000/- during transit. In this regard the complainant has relied upon the DDR lodged by it Ex.C-3 and the untraceable report Ex.C-9. As per the complainant since it was not a cognizable offence, therefore, the police has not lodged any FIR and by following the due process the complainant in no manner can be considered having any connivance or fraud with the insurance company to take the illegal claim.
11. The terms of the policy are to cover the accidental losses beyond the control of the insured or its employees whereas the accident and misfortune is proven fact. The complainant has relied upon two judgments i.e. one of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd. &Ors. 2009 (4) CPJ (SC) 19 and another of Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2008(1) CPJ 38 to demonstrate that where the terms of policy, if vague would be interpreted for the benefit of the insured. In the present case we do not find any vagueness in the terms of the policy as the distance between the insured premises from Sector 26 to Canara Bank Sector 8 Chandigarh is hardly three KMs to and fro and falls within the agreed radius of 15 miles as per the terms of policy. Further the loss of cash in transit is covered only if the reasons are beyond the control of the insured or his employees. In the present case the negligence of the employee of the insured is writ large as he has not taken due care while carrying huge cash in transit knowing fully well the exposure of danger enroute while taking stopovers during onward and backward journey. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim as per terms of the policy and are no where deficient in rendering service or have indulged in any unfair trade practice. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
12. In view of above discussion, the complaint being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
March 15, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
