Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Balkishan Ghanshyam Toshniwal on 11 February, 2016

                                      1                               F.A.No.:827-14




             STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
                 COMMISSIONJ,MAHARASHTRA,
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                        First Appeal No. A/14/827
     (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/09/2014 in Case No. cc/191/2012 of
                             District Nanded)

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Manager, GE Plaza, Airport road, Yerwada,
Pune-8 through its Div. Manager, IInd
floor, Near LIC Building, Rajendra
Chambers, Aurangabad                        ...........Appellant(s)
                   Versus

1. Balkishan Ghanshyam Toshniwal
Prop. Laxmiramna Collections, Yogeshwar
complex, Anand Nagar, Nanded            ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
          HON'BLE MR. S.M.SHEMBOLE PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MRS. UMA BORA MEMBER For the Sandip Gaikwad,Advocate, Proxy for S.G.Chapalgaonkar Appellant:

For the      Adv. G. C. Navandar
Respondent:



                                 - :: ORAL JUDGMENT :: -
                               (Delivered on 11th February,2016)

PER HON'BLE MRS. UMA BORA MEMBER

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Pune through its Divisional Manager, Aurangabad challenges in this appeal the 2 F.A.No.:827-14 judgment and order passed by District Forum, Nanded on 30.09.2014 while allowing consumer complaint No.191/2012.

2. Facts in nutshell are as under:

Complainant Balkrishna Ghanasham Toshniwal resident of Nanded is running the shop in the name and style as "Laxmiramanna Collection'. To secure his goods situated in his shop he had obtained the insurance policy bearing No. OG-12-2007-4092-00000092. Said policy for the period of 17.04.2011 to 16.04.2012. On 02.11.2011 at 10.50 a.m. complainant was to open his shop, he opened his one shutter of the shop and kept two bags which he carried with him in the shop. While returning after opening the second shutter he found that the bag in which there was Rs.30,000/- in cash, recharge voucher and mobiles amounting to Rs.40,000/- and other articles amounting to Rs.14,000/- was not on its place. He tried to found the said bag in the shop and near about the area. He also enquired about the persons standing nearby his shop. But it would not be found. Therefore complainant immediately lodged the police compliant by Cr. No.21/11 u/s.379 of IPC and also prefer the claim with the insurance company. But his claim was not decided, therefore again he issued legal notice dated 19.12.2011 and thereafter his claim was repudiated on 23.12.2011 on the ground that, the policy was not for theft of the articles. It is for the goods/money in transit. Therefore complainant approached to Forum and claimed the compensation of Rs.84,000/- with 18% interest from 02.11.2011, Rs.40,000/- for mental agony, Rs.10,000/- for cost of the complaint.

3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that though complainant obtained policy for secure his goods/money, said policy was for the money in transit and 3 F.A.No.:827-14 not for the theft of the goods or money. Complainant filed the FIR in respect of theft of the money which is not at all sustainable as per policy terms and conditions.

4. After hearing both the parties District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed appellant insurance company to pay Rs.30,000/- in respect of money insurance. Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.1000/- for mental agony and Rs.1000/- for cost of the complaint.

5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order insurance company came in appeal.

6. Adv. Shri. Sandip Gaikwad appeared for appellant. Adv. Shri. G. C. Navandar appeared for respondent/complainant. It is submitted by Adv. Sandip Gaikwad that, it is admitted fact that, complainant has obtained the policy to secure the money/goods belonging to him. But it is submitted by Adv. Gaikwad that in respect of money, as per clause-3(1) of the policy terms and conditions " Company will indemnify for the loss in transit in money whilst carried by the insurer or its employee, because during the policy period by robbery or any other fortuitous event. It is therefore submitted by Adv. Gaikwad that claim of complainant was rightly repudiated as the case of complainant was not that his money were lost in transit, but while said bag was in the shop it is stolen by unknown persons. As theft is not included in the policy terms and conditions claim was rightly repudiated. But District Forum by ignoring said fact directed appellant to pay the money insurance. Hence said order be quashed and set aside by allowing the complaint.

In support of his contention he relied on- M/s. Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. United India Insurance Co., wherein it is 4 F.A.No.:827-14 held by Hon'ble National Commission that adjudicating contractual dispute no deviation is allowed from the words of contract.

7. Adv. Navandar appeared for respondent submitted that complainant had obtained the policy to safeguard his money as well as goods and therefore as some unknown persons has stolen the bag consisting of money claim was preferred by the complainant. But insurance company repudiated the claim on incorrect and false ground. The complainant was carrying the bag of money from the house to the shop and therefore it is included in money in transit. District Forum rightly considered the facts and evidence while allowing the complaint. Hence appeal be dismissed.

6. We thus heard both the counsel and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that, complainant had obtained the policy. It is seen from the policy that money insurance had obtained and according to terms and conditions of the policy mentioned above the money in transit is insured. As per the dictionary, meaning of word 'transit' is the "carrying of people or things from one place to another". In our view, in the present case complainant reached to his shop and after opening the shop he kept the bags in the shop and during that course while he opening another shutter somebody stolen the said bag. In our view, this is not transit. The bag was kept in the shop and the case is of theft only and not the loss in transit. But District Forum himself interpreted the terms and conditions of the policy while allowing the complaint. Therefore the order passed by Forum is suffering from illegality and irregularity. Hence required to be quash and set aside. Hence the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The judgment and order passed by the Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. Complaint stands dismissed.

4. No order as to cost.

[HON'BLE MR. S.M.SHEMBOLE] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. UMA BORA] MEMBER Kalyankar