(Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member ) (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 08/04/2011 in Consumer Complaint No.333/2010, Shri Nitin P. Kamalakar Ahire Vs. Manager, The New Asurance Co.Ltd. & India , passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (Forum in short). ors.
(2) The consumer complaint pertains to arbitrary repudiation of the insurance company.
The forum accepted the case of the complainant and directed the opponent to pay compensation of ` 2 lacs and further compensation of ` 15,000/- and ` 1,000/- towards costs. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the insurance company preferred this appeal.
(3) Referring to the description of the party i.e. Managers of the insurance company, since it is stated that it is an insurance company which is a real contestant and they did so before the forum and even filed this appeal, the misdescription is left with no adverse consequences.
(4) Admitted facts are that the complainant had taken shop keepers insurance policy and thereby money in his hand as well as in the hand of his employee during the transit, was insured.
It is alleged by the respondent/complainant that when he was taking cash of ` 2,37,800/- for being deposited in the bank in his car driven by his chauffeur on his way keeping the bag containing the cash in car itself, he went to attend his another work. On returning, he noticed that the cash kept in the car was stolen. Therefore, after lodging the police complaint, he made a insurance claim which was repudiated by letter dated 28/04/2009 on the ground mentioned as under:- We hereby repudiate our liability under Exclusion No.2 of Policy which reads as Loss of money entrusted to any person other than the insured or an authorized employee of the insured.
(5) Heard both the parties. Referring to the clause in the insurance policy which reads as under:- The company will indemnify the insured in respect of loss by accident or misfortune whilst the insureds money is in his hands or in the hands of his employee in transit between any two places within a radius of fifteen miles from the insured premises.
(6) It is submitted that at the time of theft in question, the cash was neither entrusted to the driver nor the driver was informed about the bag containing cash left in the car when the complainant left the car and since the complainant did not ensure that the cash was properly secured, repudiation of the insurance claim is fully justified. The repudiation is not on this count.
However, we find no substance in the submission of the counsel for the appellant.
(7) Admittedly, the cash was taken for being deposited in the bank by the complainant himself in his own car. When he momentarily left the car keeping the bag containing cash in the rear side of the car, he does not lose his possession of said bag containing cash. The cash was not at all entrusted to the driver. It does not mean that the complainant had left the position of the money kept in the car. At the second instance, if complainant did not inform about the cash to the driver, it cannot be said that he was negligent in not informing the driver. It also cannot be said that the cash was kept in an unsecured condition when it was kept in the car. The culprits fooled the driver making him to alight from the car and stolen the cash. The policy investigation found the incident true but culprits not traceable and filed A summary. Considering all these facts and terms & conditions of the policy covered, it can be seen that it is well covered under the above referred clause to make the claim and insurance company was duty bound to indemnify the insurance claim.
(8) Before parting with the order, we made reference to the fact that the learned counsel for the appellant relied on two cases of the National Commission. One in Revision Petition No.2555 of 2005 decided on 19/03/2009 (Quorum : Honble Mr.Justice Ashok Bhan, The President and Honble Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member) and another decision in the matter of . I (2012) CPJ 365 (NC). In theAggarwal Agencies Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr first case, it was the case when the complainant left the equipments at the bus stand without any attendant and in the second case, it was the partner carrying the money. Both these cases are different than the case in hand. Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to take a different view than what is taken by the District Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER (1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 29 November, 2012. th [HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member [HON'BLE MR. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER