National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Pradeep Kumar Trilokchand on 11 April, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 699 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 29/11/2018 in Appeal No. 2528/2007 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, DELHI LEGAL HUB, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 1ST FLOOR, CORE-3, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT-CENTRE, DELHI-110092 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. PRADEEP KUMAR TRILOKCHAND 9, HATHIPALA JUNI, INDORE MADHYA PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. K. K. Bhat, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 11 Apr 2019 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, (ORAL)
The complainant firm obtained an insurance policy from the petitioner in respect of the money in the custody of the insured or its authorized employees. Mr. Khemchand a partner of the complainant firm collected Rs.5,15,000/- from various customers and boarded a bus for returning to Indore on 1.7.2005, carrying the cash collected by him in a canvas bag which was then kept in a briefcase. This is also the case of the complainant in the consumer complaint that the briefcase had been tied with the pipe of the bus using a chain for the purpose. When the bus reached village Bhudhni, the driver, conductor and most of the bus passengers got down from the bus to take refreshments. The partner of the complainant firm also went out to ease himself. When he returned to the bus after 3-4 minutes, he found the briefcase broken and the canvas bag containing the cash missing. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR was registered. A claim for reimbursement in terms of the insurance policy was lodged by the complainant/respondent with the petitioner company. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 1.6.2006 which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-
"We have examined the papers submitted by you in support of the claim. As per FIR lodged with the Police Authorities by your partner Mr. Khemchand who was carrying the money (cash), he had got down from the bus for taking refreshments/ tea, leaving the bag in which money was stuffed unattended in the bus and when he returned to the Bus he noticed that the money was stolen.
From the above facts it is clear that the alleged loss of money falls under exclusion No.6 of the policy which reads as under:
" Exclusion 6 - The Company shall not be liable in respect of Money carried under Contract of affraightment and theft of money from unattended vehicle".
2. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primary on the grounds on which the claim had been repudiated.
4. The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 29.11.2018, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.515315/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. and the cost of the litigation quantified at Rs.3,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
5. The only question involved in this petition is as to whether the loss of the complainant was covered under Exclusion No.6 of the insurance policy. A perusal of the Exclusion Clause as extracted in the repudiation letter would show that the insurer was not liable in respect of the money stolen from 'unattended vehicle'. It would thus be seen that what is relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition is as to whether the vehicle from which the money was stolen was unattended at the time of theft, or not. If it is found that the vehicle was not unattended though the briefcase in which cash was being carried was unattended, on account of the partner of the complainant firm having gone out of the bus to ease himself, that would not attract the Exclusion Clause 6 of the insurance policy.
6. The onus was upon the insurer to prove that the Exclusion Clause referred in the repudiation letter was attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the insurer was required to prove that the vehicle from which the money was stolen was unattended at the time the theft took place. There is absolutely no evidence of the vehicle being unattended at the time the money was stolen. In the FIR on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, the partner of the complainant firm stated that most "most of the passengers" had got down from the bus to take refreshments at the place where the bus had stopped. The use of the words "most of the passengers" clearly shows that some passengers had stayed inside the bus though majority of them had got down in order to take refreshments. If some of the passengers were still present in the bus at the time the theft was committed, it cannot be said that the vehicle was unattended at the time the cash was stolen. Therefore, Exclusion 6 of the insurance policy was clearly not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the repudiation of the claim was not justified.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER