DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Ajit Karam Singh International Public School, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh, through its Executive Director & Trustee Mr. Jasdeep Kalra.

                                                                   ---Complainant

Vs

United India Insurance company Ltd., SCO No. 53, Sector 26-D, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, Branch Office No. 1, through its Branch Manager.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA           MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:  Shri Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the Complainant.

Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the Opposite Party

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                 The Complainant had taken a Compact Insurance Policy for his School covering the period from 22.01.2010 to midnight of 21.01.2011 from the Opposite Party. As per Policy terms and conditions the peril of money relating to profession or business while in transit was also covered. 

                    On 23.02.2010, the Chief Accounts Officer of the Complainant School Mr. D.R. Sikka was given `30,340/- to deposit in State Bank of Patiala, Sector 41, Chandigarh. As per the Complainant, while he was going to deposit the said amount, by boarding the local CTU bus, an unknown young man pushed him and took out the money from his pocket and ran away by jumping from the bus. The matter was reported to the Police Stations Sector 17 and 39 and accordingly DDR Nos. 12 dated 24.2.2010 and No. 7 dated 26.2.2011 respectively were lodged.  Later F.I.R. No. 100 also lodged. Copies of the DDRs and FIR are at Annexure C-2 to C-4 respectively.  Thereafter, one Mr. Pankaj Vohra from M/s Duggal Gupta Surveyor (P) Ltd., visited the School premises of Complainant to whom all the facts were explained. As the said Mr. Pankaj Vohra asked the Complainant to give the facts in writing also, so a letter dated 26.3.2010 was written, explaining the facts of the incident in detail.            The OP-Insurance Company raised some queries vide letter dated 31.5.2010, which were duly replied by the Complainant vide letter dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure C-8). Thereafter, on the request of the Opposite Party, the Complainant also supplied the documents required for passing of claim.  The Complainant has now alleged that despite their completing all the requisite formalities and furnishing documents sought by the Opposite Party, the claim has been repudiated vide letter dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure C-9) with the contention that the loss did not fall under the purview of the Policy.

                    The Complainant has alleged that the OP-Insurance Company has repudiated the claim without appreciating the entire facts of the case and despite repeated requests and legal notice the claim has not been paid.  The Complainant has therefore, prayed for indemnification of the loss sustained, along with interest and compensation. 

                    The correspondence exchanged between the parties as well the police reports have been placed as Annexures to the complaint.  

2.                 After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the Opposite Party.

3.                 Opposite Party in reply has submitted that there is no cause of action in favour of the Complainant, as there is no deficiency in service on their part. The Complainant had obtained a policy under the head “Money Insurance”. Under this policy, money relating to profession or business while in transit from and to the insured premises described in the schedule; money in safe installed at the insured’s premises; and money in till, were covered. In the instant case, on 23.02.2010 Mr. D.R. Sikka, Accounts Officer of the Complainant School was entrusted with the task of depositing `30,340/- collected from the Students on account of a farewell function being organized by the Students; in the State Bank of Patiala, Sector 41, Chandigarh. Instead of depositing the amount straight away, the said Mr. D.R. Sikka first went to Sector 22, Chandigarh, for some work, followed by a visit to the D.C. Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh, from where Mr. Sikka allegedly boarded a public bus for Sector 40 Chandigarh, for the deposit of the said amount in the Bank. All these details have been given in the DDR No. 12 dated 24.04.2010 placed at Annexure C-2 by the Complainant. It has also written in the DDR that the money was stolen from his pocket in transit.  Subsequently, in another DDR No. 7 dated 26.02.2010, Mr. Sikka has given a different version, where he claims to have seen a man taking out money from his pocket. He has tried to catch hold of the man, but has been unsuccessful. Under the circumstances, the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, as the cash was unnecessarily subjected to risk, by not going straight to the Bank from the insured’s premise. Hence, the claim was rightly repudiated.  Even otherwise also, the lost amount referred was the collection from the students towards arrangements for a farewell function. Hence, the money involved belonged to the Students and not to the School (Complainant). The policy covers only the money owned by the School. Opposite Party has therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.   

4.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have perused the record.

6.                 The DDR No. 12 dated 24.02.2010 and  No. 7 dated 26.02.2010 placed on record by the Complainant at Annexure C-2 and C-3 respectively, clearly show that the Chief Accounts Officer of the Complainant has been traveling with the cash to various places, but has not actually gone to deposit the cash in the Bank, which is incidentally in the same Sector as the School. The Sectors in Chandigarh being small, the distance could easily be covered on foot. Even a local bus would not be needed. There is no mention of anyone having pushed the said Chief Accounts Officer or forced him to give the money. An excerpt from F.I.R. No. 100 dated 13.3.2010 (Annexure C-4) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“…………I reached School. But cash missing found. I think some body in the bus has stolen the amount.”  

                    Further, the excerpts of a letter dated 3.4.2011 (Annexure C-5), addressed to the SHO, Police Post ISBT, Sector 17, Chandigarh, by Mr. Sikka, Chief Accounts Officer, are reproduced hereinbelow:-

“…………There was a big rush in the bus. While boarding the bus a young man pushed me and took out the money from by coat pocket. As I realized what had happened, I tried to catch him and shouted for help but as the bus was jam packed and had started moving out & I being a senior citizen, could not stop him. The passengers also could not help as he immediately ran away. I asked the Conductor to stop the bus but by the time he realized what had happened the bus had moved out of the stand.”  

                    The details given in the DDRs and F.I.R. above are self-contradictory. Also it is a clear pointer to the fact that the Chief Accounts Officer was careless with the money. He has visited many places but has actually never gone to the Bank to deposit the amount. The way the money has been taken away from him is different in every version given in the two DDRs and F.I.R. Hence, some version of the Chief Accounts Officer is definitely false and fabricated.

7.                 The Complainant has also placed on record the Policy in support of his claim.  A perusal of the said Policy at page 2, which covers the Property/Risk, under Section V, relates to cash. The said section reads as under:-

“Money in Office in Locked Safe Outside Business Hours.”  

                    To our mind, this  would mean that all money kept in the premises of the office would be covered under the policy of insurance even outside of business hours. The money lost by the Complainant is outside the business premises.

8.                 The Opposite Party has also contended that the money belonged to students, as it was fund collected for a farewell function. Hence, the money did not belong to the School.  Also, it did not pertain to the business or profession of the insured.  This assertion has been made in the reply, as well as affidavit dated 20.09.2011 of Sh. Ajay Sharma, Assistant Manager of the OP- Insurance Company.  The Complainant has not filed any counter affidavit to deny this contention of the Opposite Party.

9.                 It can therefore, clearly be interpreted from clause of Section V of the Policy on record that cash outside the premises of the School was not covered under the Policy. The Chief Accounts Officer has taken the money to the Bank but has actually not reached the Bank. In F.I.R. No. 100 dated 13.3.2010, he has stated that when he came back to the School, he found that the money was not in his pocket; even though in a later letter to the SHO (Annexure C-5) on the same date, he has stated that a person pushed him and took away the money from his pocket.  Whatever may be the circumstances, the cash was lost outside the premises of the School. 

10.               The Opposite Party has also contended that the money did not belong to the School and the cash was not accounted in the funds of the business or profession of the school.  This averment of the Opposite Party has not been denied by the Complainant.  Hence, we do not feel that the Complainant has any case and the Opposite Party has rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant. The case is accordingly, dismissed.

11.               Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th May,  2012.                                                                       

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER