Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/365/2015

Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/365/2015
Date of Institution	:	08/06/2015
Date of Decision	:	02/11/2016

 

Mahinder Singh s/o late Sukhdarshan Singh c/o M/s Sangam Electronics, Shop No.700, Ground, 1^st Floor and 2^nd Floor, Main Bazaar Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District, SAS Nagar.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Service Centre (CHORO) SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Service Head Office A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, 110002, through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Pankaj Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Counsel for OPs

                 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Mohinder Singh, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs).

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is running a shop of electronic goods in the name and style of M/s Sangam Electronic at Main Bazar, Kharar. The complainant got an insurance policy (Annexure C-1) from the OPs for his shop which was valid from 29.1.2014 to 28.1.2015. On 20.3.2014, the complainant as per his daily routine closed his shop at around 9:15 p.m. When he came to the shop on the next day morning i.e. 21.3.2014 at around 8:00 a.m., opened the shop and checked the locker of the counter, he saw the locker was broken. The complainant came to know that somebody had come from the side of the floor, broke the locker of the counter and stole money i.e. Rs.2,75,000/- which was sale of the complainant of the earlier day. The complainant immediately informed the police and registered an FIR dated 21.3.2014. The complainant tried to get the insured amount as per OPs norms, but, they flatly refused to admit the claim. Hence, the present complaint.

2.         The OPs in their written statement resisted the complaint, inter alia, taking the preliminary objections that there is no defect, delay or deficiency on the part of the OPs.  It is alleged that the OPs before issuing the policy had explained each and every term and condition of the said policy and even the exclusions were also explained to the complainant and after going through the said terms and conditions, he agreed to purchase the policy.  It is pleaded that after receiving the intimation regarding loss, OPs immediately deputed the surveyor, Sh. Rajan Sharda to assess the loss and the said surveyor submitted his independent survey report with the OPs and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,92,000/-.  While scrutinizing the claim papers and survey report, OPs pointed out that under the heading of assessment of survey report, it was specifically mentioned that cash was stolen from a wooden drawer fixed in a wooden counter and the said cash was not kept by the complainant in the burglar resistant safe or in a steel cupboard/steel cash box under lock and key. Thus, the OPs alleged that since the cash was not kept in a safe as per the terms and conditions of the policy, so the complainant is not entitled for the insurance amount. On merits also similar pleas were taken and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the OPs.  In reply to the preliminary objections, it is alleged that cash was stolen from the counter and this provision is well within the ambit of the policy under the head burglary and housebreaking. Thus, the complainant prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of the complainant, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the cash of Rs.2,75,000/- was stolen from the counter by some thief by breaking open the locker of the counter and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, OPs are bound to indemnify the claim of the complainant, which they have failed. So, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  He argued that the theft was at the counter and as per condition No.3 of the policy, a theft from the counter is also covered under the policy and the complainant is entitled for a sum of at least Rs.2.00 lakhs as policy amount alongwith compensation and interest.
7.         The learned counsel for the OPs, on the other hand, argued that as the complainant did not keep the amount in a proper safe, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, so, he is not entitled to the compensation for the loss suffered by him.  He argued that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy.
8.         There is no dispute that on the intervening night of 20/21.3.2014, a theft was committed in the shop of the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- was stolen.  Annexure C-2 proves that the complainant lodged an FIR with regard to the said theft. The surveyor report (Annexure R-3) also corroborates the version of the complainant about the theft having taken place in his shop.  The only question which requires determination is as to whether, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant is entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by him or he himself was negligent in not keeping the money in a proper safe?
9.         The complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1, which is a copy of the insurance policy, but, he has not placed on record the complete copy of the insurance policy. However, the OPs have placed on record the complete copy of the insurance policy (Annexure R-1), which includes the terms and conditions for the shopkeepers insurance policy and the same mentions as under :-

3	SEC IIIA Money	Money in transit	2,00,000	500.00
3	SEC IIIA Money	Money in Safe	2,00,000	500.00
3	SEC IIIA Money	Money in Till/ Counter	2,00,000	500.00

 

Thus, it is proved that the complainant got a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- insured as money in transit, Rs.2,00,000/- as money in safe and Rs.2,00,000/- as money in Till/Counter. The case of the complainant is that after closing his shop, he kept the money in the counter locker, which was broken by some unknown person, and cash of Rs.2,75,000/- was taken away.  To the same effect FIR was also lodged by the complainant.  Thus, as per the version of the complainant, cash was kept in the locker of counter and not in a safe.  In this regard, Section 3 of the policy reads as under :-

                “The Company shall indemnify the Insured in respect of :

                a)      Loss by accident or misfortune whilst the Insured’s money is in his hands or in the hands of his authorized employees in transit between any two places within a radius of 25 kilometers from the Insured premises.

                b)      Loss of or damage to money and/or valuables by Housebreaking after business hours whilst contained in burglar resistant safe or in steel cupboard/steel cash box under lock and key.

                c)      Loss of money whilst lying in the cashier’s till and/or counter in the Insured’s premises during business hours consequent on or following assault and/or violence against the Insured or any employee of the Insured or any threat thereof by Housebreaking provided always that such money are in the custody of a responsible employee entrusted with the work of handling cash.”

As per section 3(c), loss of money whilst lying in the cashier’s till and/or counter in the Insured’s premises during business hours consequent on or following assault and/or violence against the insured or any employee of the insured or any threat thereof by housebreaking is insured, but, this clause of loss of money in cashier’s till and/or counter only relates to business hours and it does not relate to the closing hours of the shop.  In case any theft or burglary is committed from the counter during the business hours, then the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured.  But, in case it is after the business hours, then under clause (c) of Section 3, the insurance company is not liable. In the present case, after the business hours, it was the duty of the complainant to keep the cash in a safe.  No doubt the money, as alleged by the complainant, was in a counter locker, but, that counter locker cannot be said to be a safe. As per the interpretation for Section 3, safe means a strong steel box or steel cupboard with special double locks designed for keeping valuable things, especially money or jewellery.  It is not the case of the complainant that the cash was kept in a safe or the counter locker of the complainant was having the same specifications as that of a safe.  The report of surveyor (Annexure R-3) proves that the insured showed them the locks of wooden drawer broken open by miscreants for taking out cash.  Thus, as per the surveyor report also, the locker from which the money was stolen, was a wooden drawer whose locks were broken. The wooden drawer or counter locker of the complainant had no such specification as that of a safe required to keep the money.  Since the complainant himself did not keep the money in a proper safe, so he himself is negligent and has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the OPs are not under any obligation to indemnify the complainant.  Had the complainant kept the money in a safe and money had been taken out by breaking open the proper safe, in that situation the OPs could be held responsible to indemnify the loss. As such, the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 3 (a), as the money was not kept in a safe.  He is also not entitled to the benefit of Section 3(c) as the money was not stolen during the business hours while kept in a till/counter. So, it is established that the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and he is bound by the same.  As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the insurance company.

10.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances narrated above, we have no hesitation to hold that the present complaint is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
02/11/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President