CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.245/2009
DELHI STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS COMPANY SECRETRY-CUM-
ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER,
7-9, ARAM BAGH, PAHAR GANJ,
NEW DELHI-110055
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE:
2 LSC OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
PHASE-II, NEAR C.LAL CHOWK,
NEW DELHI-110020
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:27.08.2018
O R D E R
H.C. Suri - Member
This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation, a public sector undertaking registered under the Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as the Consumer, against the United India Insurance Company Limited, hereinafter referred to as the OP, alleging that the complainant was getting the insurance cover with respect to all its liquor vends against fire, burglary, cash in transit, cash in counter/drawer and cash in safe; that the complainant invited quotations for insurance for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 and from the various quotations received, the quotation of M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. was selected for purchasing the policy. It is further submitted that the on the basis of the notice inviting tender and the quotation dated 20.3.2006, the concerned officer of the Insurance company had calculated the premium and conveyed the same to the complainant vide their letter dated 31.3.2006.
It is further submitted that on 22nd May, 2006, when the staff of the complainant was carrying a sum of Rs.6,04,260/- in a safe collected from sale proceeds for deposing it into a bank, the same was looted by some unknown miscreants from the staff of the complainant at gun point, and the staff was severely injured by the gun shot of the miscreants, and thereafter the incident was duly reported to the Branch Manager of the OP on the same day. The claim was submitted to the insurance company /OP and the consequently, the OP appointed M/s S. Soni & Co. as the Surveyors for assessing and ascertaining the loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant provided all the documents and information, including daily sales statement from 19.5.2006 to 22.5.2006, to the Surveyors for assessing the loss. The complainant further submits that they were shocked to receive the letter dated 16.1.2008 from the OP informing that the policy in question is under Section IA of the Policy which is for the purpose of insurance coverage for money for payment of wages, salaries or for petty cash in direct transit from Bank to the insured premises. It was further informed that since the cash was looted during the transit from the complainant’s premises to the Bank which falls under section IB of the policy, the claim of the complainant is not tenable and the same has been repudiated. The complainant submits that the tender invitation and the quotation of the insurance company and the proposed premium charged by the OP would leave no scope of doubt that the policy was taken and issued for section IB and the claim of the complainant is covered under the said policy. It is further submitted that the complainant used to deposit the sale proceeds in the bank on daily basis and the salary of the employees were not being paid from the amount withdrawn from the bank. It is submitted that the alleged repudiation by the OP is arbitrary and without any application of mind inasmuch as the insurance company issued a further policy for a new shop at 13,LSC Saini Enclave Delhi, in respect of the cash in transit cover for Rs.1.89 crores on the same terms and conditions which was covered under section IB of the policy, which would prove that the company had repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reason. The complainant alleges negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and that due to gross deficiency in service, the complainant has suffered a huge loss. The complainant further submits that they have suffered a lot of mental and physical harassment, and seeks the relief that the directions be issued to the OP to settle the claim of Rs.6,04,260/- and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for physical and mental harassment caused by the OP, in addition to cost of litigation.
In its written statement to the complaint, the OP has tried to justify the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had no coverage under clause 1B and had taken the coverage under clause 1A, and that since the cash was looted during the transit from insured’s premises to the bank, this would fall under clause 1B of the policy which states “Money (other than described in 1A above” in the personal custody of the insured or the authorised employees of the insured whilst in direct transit between the premises and the bank or post office and vice versa”. And the insured had not taken the coverage under section 1B. It is submitted that the loss of Rs.6 lacs and odd suffered due to the looting incident during transit from the complainant’s premises to the Bank is not tenable and had to be repudiated by the OP. It is submitted that the complainant is trying to take the benefit of its own wrong and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed because the complainant has filed the false claim before the OP. The OP further submits that this matter was placed before the competent authority of the OP who after carefully going through the entire matter came to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant is not payable and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is denied by the OP that there was any mental pain, agony or harassment to the complainant. It is further denied that complainant is entitled to any compensation or litigation cost.
The complainant has filed its rejoinder to the written statement, wherein the averments of the complaint have been reiterated and reaffirmed and those of the written statement have been stated to be wrong and denied. It has been specifically denied that the complainant had obtained insurance policy only under Section 1A of the policy. It is further submitted that from the quotation/premium bill of the OP that insurance coverage was taken for money in transit for Rs.390 crore with single carrying limit of Rs.10 lakh cash in safe for Rs.4.29 crore and cash at counter for Rs.17.35 lakh which are covered under Section I(ii)(iii) and Section II of the Money Insurance Policy. It is submitted that the Insurance company has committed an error in preparing the policy documents. It is submitted that the main intention of the complainant in obtaining the cash-in-transit insurance policy was to provide insurance coverage to the cash which was being collected from its vends after the sale proceeds and further taken to the bank. It is submitted by the complainant that the OP wrongly mentioned ZERO in column 1B and has rejected the claim of the complainant due to its own negligent act while making insurance policy. It is further submitted by the complainant that it has taken a further insurance policy cover for its newly opened liquor vend at Saini Enclave wherein insurance company has shown categorically “cash in transit” amount correctly against section 1B in the policy documents. It is submitted that the Surveyor has submitted a bogus report, in connivance with the OP, against the claim of the complainant. The complainant has reiterated its prayer clause made in the complaint. Similar facts and evidence have been mentioned by the complainant in its evidence by way of affidavit.
The OP has also filed their evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments, and have more or less repeated the facts, while denying any deficiency in service on their part and making a prayer that the complaint might be dismissed.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
The complainant itself has placed copy of the policy on record which clearly shows that the policy covered the loss under clause 1A and not under clause 1B. OP was justified in repudiating the claim vide letter dated 16.01.2008 wherein it is clearly stated:-
“Money for payment to wages, salaries or for petty cash in direct transit from the bank to the insured’s premises from the time the cash is received at the bank by the insured or the authorized employee(s) of the insured until delivery at the premises or other place of disbursement and whilst there, until paid out provided that after business hours such cash be secure in locked safe or locked strong room on the premises for a period not exceeding 48 hours from the time of arrival of such cash at the said premises or places of disbursements, cheques drawn by the insured to provide for such cash are covered in transit from the premises to the bank.”
Since the policy was under clause 1A, therefore, OP was justified in repudiating the claim. No case of deficiency is made out. The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
