Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/574/2010

V.K..C CREDIT AND FOREEX SERVICES PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

K.RAVI KUMAR

14 Jan 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI                   PRESIDENT  

                                                           THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                                               JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                           TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.574/2010

(Against the order in CC.No.63/2007, dated 27.04.2010 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF JANUARY 2015

V.K.C.Credit and Forex Services Pvt.Ltd,

1^st Floor, Aishwarya Complex,

No.1, West Road, West C.I.T.Nagar,                                                     M/s.K.Ravikumar

Chennai – 35,                                                                                         Counsel for Appellant /Complainant

Rep by its Director.

-vs-

The New India Insurance Company Ltd,

Rathna Building,                                                                                     M/s.B.Gopalan

372, T.T.K.Road,                                                                                    Counsel for Respondent/Opp.party

Alwarpet, Chennai -18.

 

          The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.63/2007, dated 27.04.2010.     

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.12.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.       The complainant having Forex services dealing with various money transactions  including  foreign  currencies, Travelers Cheques, Cash etc obtained a policy from the opposite party covering the risk upto Rs.23,25,00,000/- continued the policy for the year 2002-2003 covering the branch offices with the risk coverage restricted to defined mishaps occurring during transit between the declared addresses for the specific limit of coverage for every branch, compulsory reporting of addresses of existing branches as well as opening of new branches and submission of statement relating to the transactions and accordingly a new policy was issued on 23.6.2003 for the sum being Rs.20 crores on payment of premium of Rs.1.10 lakhs with condition under the head distance “Various between various branches to banks, customer places, dealers, other money changes, directors, residence and transit between branches anywhere in India.  On 7.5.2004 when the complainant’s area Manager Badrinarayanan was carrying travelers cheques 40 in numbers valid 20,000 US dollars from New Delhi office at South Extension-II to their Gurgaon Branch, the cheques were lost and complaint was lodged and on the basis of the same when the claim was made the opposite party repudiated the claim even though surveyor assessed and recommended the loss for Rs.8,65,000/- and the original policy was not issued by the opposite party and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed.

3.       The opposite party denying the allegations contended that the complainant had forwarded a letter dated 20.06.2003 containing with a list of branch offices and seeking money insurance for the branches covered and the cover stated to be required for a sum of Rs.20 crores with insured limit for Rs.5,00,000/- for one incident limit and thereby the intention is not to grant any cover without reference to actual branches of the complainant and the policy covers losses in transit only while money being carried between specified places.  But in this case the cheques were lost between the branches at South Extension-II New Delhi and Gurgaon which were not covered under the policy in terms of the permitted offices as per RBI licence on the date of insurance.  But the location has been altered and increased and thereby the claim was repudiated.

4.       On the basis of both sides materials after an enquiry the District Forum accepting the contentions of the opposite party came to the conclusion that the claim made towards loss between the branches are not covered under the policy and there was no policy terms to cover the risk as per Ex.B1 dismissed the complaint.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant come forward with this appeal contended that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint and the insurer failed to issue original policy and issued copy with different terms dated 19.3.2004 and erred in not holding the above act would amount to deficiency of service.  Further the policy was renewed for the period for 2003-2004 with the same terms for 2002-2003.  In view of the expansion of the complainant’s operation the appellant was finding it difficult to get the details from the branches and to send consolidated declaration every month as per policy terms and the District Forum comes to erroneous conclusion.

6.       We have heard both sides arguments contentions and carefully considered the materials including written submissions made by either side and the order of the District Forum.  It is the case of the appellant / complainant that as per the policy cover they are entitled for the risk coverage for the loss of traveler cheques in between the transit branches of New Delhi South Extension-II and Gurgaon branch as per the terms and conditions and the opposite party had not issued new policy but only issued a copy of the policy dated 19.3.2004 contrary to the mutually agreed upon.  But whereas the opposite party contended under Ex.A6 and Ex.B2 the complainant themselves have forwarded a letter dated 20.6.2003 in which the new branches were not added and it is only a internal correspondence between the office of the opposite party and in the said documents it was mentioned that the coverage was to be granted only money insurance policy in terms and not continuous policies as argued by the complainant.  As per the letter under Ex.B1 dated 20.6.2003 the policy was issued as per the copy of the policy under Ex.B2 that the list of location and as per Ex.B1 and B2 there was no liability on the part of the opposite party to settle the claim.  Further the opposite party submitted in the written arguments the intimation regarding the new location on 18.5.2004 wide New RBI license after the loss on 7.5.2004 itself reveals the necessity for intimation to be given and this was not denied by the complainant / appellant with a new license obtained only after the loss from the branch was already not including in the list of the policy enclosure cover.  Further since because the surveyor was appointed and investigated the claim it is not necessary for the insurance company to honour the claim when such appointing is a basic necessity for considering the claim and relied upon the rulings as discussed in the order in Civil Appeal No.3253/2002 dated 9.4.2009 wherein the apex court held as follows:

          “In other words although the assessment of loss by the approved surveyor is a pre-requisite for payment or settlement of claim of twenty thousand rupees or more by insurer, but surveyor’s report is not the last and final word.  It is not that sacrosanct that it cannot be a departed from; it is not conclusive.  The approved surveyor’s report may be basis or foundation for settlement of a claim by the insurer in respect of the loss suffered by the insured but surely such report is neither binding upon the insurer nor insured.”

Whereas the appellant relied upon the ruling reported in 2009 (4) C.T.C.page 779 in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited –vs- Zuari Industries Ltd it is held as follows:

          “Term ‘Fire’ in Fire Policy is not defined – Fire caused damage – Fire is for fraction of a second – Repudiation of claim on ground that thee was no ‘sustained fire’ – Held : it is well settled that Court cannot add words to statute or to a document and must read it as it is –Duration of fire is not relevant – As long as there is fire which caused damage claim is maintainable, even if fire is for fraction of second- Hence, repudiation of policy on ground that there was no ‘sustained fire’ is not justified.”

These rulings are discussed and considered by the District Forum by accepting the contentions of the opposite party and relying upon the documents under Ex.B1 came to the proper conclusion as per Ex.B1 the complainant is not entitled to claim the amount against the branches not included under the coverage.  On perusal of Ex.B1reveals that there was no inclusion of branches in South Extension-II, New Delhi Branch and Gurgaon and the contentions that as per the terms and continuous nature of policy the branches which are not covered in the list or not reported would also entitled for the coverage is not proved by the complainant with acceptable materials and thereby we are of the view that the District Forum order is well considered one and we find no error or infirmity in it to interfere with the same and accordingly the appeal is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.63/2007, dated 27.04.2010.

          There will be no order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 P.BAKIYAVATHI                A.K.ANNAMALAI                    R.REGUPATHI

      MEMBER                          (J) MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

 

 

INDEX: YES/ NO

VL/PJM/D;/CONSUMER