| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.191/14 Date of Institution:04/04/2014 Date of Decision:05/02/2015 M/s.Airtech Refrigerations Communications Division, 5-6, Simran Plaza, Queen’s Road, Amritsar through is partner Sh.Baldev Raj Sharma. Complainant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Office, 28, 2nd Floor, Dharam Singh Market, Amritsar through its Branch Manager/ Person over all Incharge. Opposite Party Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Sh.Subodh Salwan, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by the complainant firm through its partner under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant firm obtained money insurance policy vide cover note No.563773 from Opposite Party valid from 3.12.2010 to 2.12.2011 covering risks i.e. Rs. 8 crores cash for Currency Notes transits, Rs.2 lacs cash for Currency Notes lying in tilt counter, Rs.2 lacs cash for Currency Notes transit from shop to bank and/or partners residence & vice versa and Rs.3 lacs cash collecting by 3 employees of their firms from District Amritsar max cash carrying per employee per person is one lac. Complainant alleges that on 24.11.2011 at about 5.15 PM, Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm went to his house at 131, Anand Avenue, Amritsar with the collection of cash of the firm amounting to Rs.2 lacs carried from complainant firm’s premises in a sky blue bag with laptop and some other important documents, etc. in his Innova Car bearing RC No.PB02-BB-251 and on the way to his house, Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm halted at his newly under construction building situated at Court Road adjacent to Petrol Pump, Kichlu Chowk, Amritsar and he properly parked and duly locked his car in front of his newly under construction building. After inspecting the site within few minutes, when Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm came back from his under construction building, he was shocked to see that the left rear side glass of his car was broken and some miscreants took away his cash bag containing Rs.2 lacs carried from complainant firm’s premises in a sky blue bag with laptop and some other important documents, etc. All the efforts were made to find out the bag and miscreant, but finding no clue and in respect thereof intimation was given to the Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar who lodged FIR No.423 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 under section 379/427 IPC. The Opposite Party was also informed immediately about the theft/ loss and all the requirements/ documents were promptly supplied to them. The Opposite Party appointed Sh.Simerjit Singh Bawa, Investigator who visited the spot and had gone into the details of the happening and found the claim of the complainant firm genuine. The Opposite Party also appointed Sh.Sumant Sud Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the books of account, balance sheets for last 3 years, cash book, daily sales record, documents relating to cash deposited in the various banks during the year and other relevant documents and after detailed checking, he also came to the conclusion that the complainant firm suffered a cash loss to the tune of Rs.2 lacs in the said incident and found the claim of the complainant firm genuine. After a lapse of more than 2 years, the Opposite Party rejected the claim of the complainant on flimsy grounds vide their letter dated 30.12.2013. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs i.e. insured amount to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has filed a baseless, frivolous and an imaginary claim with an ulterior motive and has fabricated a false story with ulterior objectives to extract unlawful gains to which the complainant is not entitled. Opposite Party further submitted that no one remained present to look after/ to attend the car in question when the incident in question took place and therefore, the claim of the complainant is rightly repudiated as it falls in exclusion clause No.VI of the terms and conditions of the policy in question and even the place of the incident does not fall within the ambit of risk covered area under the policy in question. So, the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 30.12.2013 as there was a violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence the affidavits of partners of the complainant firm Ex.C1, Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 alongwith documents Ex.C4 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant firm.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.R.K.Sharma, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1, affidavit of Naresh Vashist, D.O Ex.OP2 and copies of documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant firm got money insurance policy from Opposite Party vide cover note No.563773 for the period from 3.12.2010 to 2.12.2011 covering various risks inter alia Rs.2 lacs cash for Currency Notes transit from shop to bank and/or partners residence & vice versa. Complainant alleges that on 24.11.2011 at about 5.15 PM, Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm went to his house at 131, Anand Avenue, Amritsar with the collection of cash of the firm amounting to Rs.2 lacs carried from complainant firm’s premises in a sky blue bag with laptop and some other important documents, etc. in his Innova Car bearing RC No.PB02-BB-251 and on the way to his house, Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm halted at his building under construction situated at Court Road adjacent to Petrol Pump, Kichlu Chowk, Amritsar. He properly parked and duly locked his car in front of his under construction building. After inspecting the site within few minutes, when Sh.Gautam Sharma came back from his under construction building, he found that the left rear side glass of his car was broken and some miscreants took away his cash bag containing Rs.2 lacs carried from complainant firm’s premises in a sky blue bag with laptop and some other important documents, etc. Said Gautam Sharma made all efforts to find out the bag and miscreant, but in vain. Resultantly, intimation was given to the Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar on the basis of which, FIR No.423 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 Ex.C6 under section 379/427 IPC was registered. The Opposite Party was also informed immediately about the theft/ loss. The Opposite Party appointed Sh.Simerjit Singh Bawa, Investigator who visited the spot, investigated the matter and concluded that the claim of the complainant firm is genuine. Not only this, the Opposite Party also appointed Sh.Sumant Sud Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the books of account, balance sheets for last 3 years, cash book, daily sales record, documents relating to cash deposited in the various banks during the year and other relevant documents and has come to the conclusion that the complainant firm has suffered a cash loss to the tune of Rs.2 lacs in the aforesaid incident and held the claim of the complainant firm genuine. Now after lapse of more than 2 years, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.1.2013 Ex.OP3 on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, money was stolen from the vehicle, which was left unattended by the complainant firm. So, as per the Exclusion Clause No.VI, the Opposite Party is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant firm. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the vehicle in question was never left unattended which was duly locked and parked at safe place i.e. in front of the building under construction by Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant firm by the Opposite Party on this ground is totally baseless and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the detail of risks covered under the policy is duly mentioned in the policy itself which covers money in the personal custody of the insured or the authorized employee of the insured whilst in direct transit between the premises and the bank or Post Office or any other transit. No complaint was ever lodged by the complainant prior to the filing of the present complaint with respect of non supplying of policy in question alongwith its terms and conditions. The case of the complainant firm shows that no one remained present to look after/ to attend the car in question when the incident in question has taken place. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party, therefore, submitted that the Opposite Party has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant firm as it falls in exclusion clause No.VI of the terms and conditions of the policy in question which reads as under:-
“The Company shall not be liable in respect of: No.6. Money carried under contract of affeightment and theft of money from un-attendant vehicle,” Ld.counsel for the opposite party, therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. - From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant firm obtained money insurance policy vide cover note No.563773 from Opposite Party for the period from 3.12.2010 to 2.12.2011 which covers various risks inter alia Rs.2 lacs cash for Currency Notes transit from shop to bank and/or partners residence & vice versa as is evident from the cover note Ex.C5 issued by the Opposite Party and policy document Ex.OP4. The complainant firm has succeeded in proving that on 24.11.2011 at about 5.15 PM, Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm went to his house situated at 131, Anand Avenue, Amritsar with the collection of cash of the firm amounting to Rs.2 lacs carried from complainant firm’s premises in a sky blue bag with laptop and some other important documents, etc. in his Innova Car bearing RC No.PB02-BB-251. On the way to his house, Sh.Gautam Sharma halted at his building under construction situated at Court Road adjacent to Petrol Pump, Kichlu Chowk, Amritsar. He parked and duly locked his car in front of his under construction building. After seeing the site, within a few minutes, when Sh.Gautam Sharma came back from his under construction building, he found that the left rear side glass of his car was broken and some miscreants took away his cash bag containing R.2 lacs carried from complainant firm’s premises in a sky blue bag with laptop and some other important documents, etc. The report was lodged with P.S, Civil Lines, Amritsar on the basis of which, FIR No.423 of 2011 dated 24.11.2011 Ex.C6 under section 379/427 IPC was registered. The Opposite Party was also informed immediately. Resultantly, the Opposite Party appointed Sh.Simerjit Singh Bawa, Investigator who visited the spot, investigated the matter and concluded that the claim of the complainant firm is genuine. He submitted his report Ex.C13 and concluded that loss in transit is covered under the policy. Not only this, the Opposite Party also appointed Sh.Sumant Sud Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the books of account, balance sheets for last 3 years, cash book, daily sales record, documents relating to cash deposited in the various banks during the year and other relevant documents and submitted his report Ex.C12 and he also concluded that the insured has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2 lacs and the same is recommended for consideration subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Not only this, the Opposite Party has also obtained legal opinion from their counsel Sh.P.N.Khanna, Advocate who also gave his opinion Ex.C14 dated 7.6.2013 that the surveyor as well as investigator have confirmed the loss of cash suffered by the insured and also confirmed that the car in which said cash was left was duly locked, but some miscreants broke the rear glass of the said car and took away the money bag including laptop. He also recommended the claim of the complainant holding the same as genuine. But the Opposite Party vide their letter dated 30.12.2013 Ex.OP3 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the vehicle in which the money was being carried was left unattended. This plea of the Opposite Party is not tenable because Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm properly locked his Innova Car bearing RC No.PB02-BB-251 in front of his building under construction situated at Court Road adjacent to Petrol Pump, Kichlu Chowk, Amritsar and went inside his building under construction and after inspection, when he came out of the building within a few minutes, he found that the left rear side glass of his car was broken and some miscreants took away his cash bag containing Rs.2 lacs alongwith laptop and some other important documents, etc. The plea of the Opposite Party that the car was left unattended, is not tenable. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case: United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Praveen Sharma in 2010(3) CPC page 62 that where jewellery valued about Rs.2 lac was covered under the policy was kept in a pouch put in dashboard of car near the temple-Car was duly locked and when complainant came out of temple jewellery was found missing with open door. Claim was repudiated with the plea that jewellery was put in pouch in full public view and car was parked unmanned and unattended without taking a reasonable care by complainant. It was held that the claim of the complainant is rightly accepted by Hon’ble State Commission by discussing the matter elaborately with observation that nobody will wear jewellery while visiting temple etc. Order of Hon’ble State Commission allowing complaint was held based upon valid reason. Same view has been taken by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others Vs. M/s.Manik Bhai Jewellers 2014(2) CLT page 357. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh Kumar 2011(2) CPJ 272 (NC) that where money was stolen from bag of respondent carried by him while travelling, there is nothing on record to show that claim lodged by respondent was false. The insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Here in this case, Sh.Gautam Sharma one of the partners of complainant firm duly locked the car and parked the same in front of his building under construction and after a few minutes, he came back after inspecting the site, he has taken all the proper care which is expected from a prudent person. So, it can not be held that the car was left unattended and as such, it is not covered under the exclusion clause No.VI of the policy. Resultantly, we hold that the Opposite Party has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant firm vide letter dated 30.12.2013 Ex.OP3.
- Consequently, we allow the complaint of the complainant firm with costs and the Opposite Party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.2 lacs (two lacs) i.e. loss suffered by the complainant firm alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 05.02.2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member | |
