National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. vs Ram Kumar Aggarwal on 25 October, 2001
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant National Insurance Company against the order of the State Commission awarding Rs. 79,500/- along with interest @ 15% from 1.1.93 and cost of Rs. 1500/-. Briefly the facts are that the respondent had taken two insurance policies i.e. burglary policy and a money, valid during the period of burglary from the office premises of the respondent. According to the respondent complainant his office premises was burgled in the night of 8-9-10 92 wherein Rs. 84,549.50 were stolen and other items like TV set were also taken. In all loss was estimated at Rs. 1,07,480.50. When the matter was taken up with the appellant insurance company, the appellant while admitting liability of Rs. 12,525/- against burglary of TV set repudiated the claim under money policy on the ground that the respondent complainant kept the money in violation of Clause (3) of the Exception of the terms of the policy. The State Commission after hearing both the parties awarded in all Rs. 79,525/- say Rs. 79,500/- against both burglary and money policy, along with rate of interest @ 15% from 1.1.93 and cost of Rs. 1500/-.
2. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Insurance Company is ready to pay for the cost of TV which is covered under Burglary Policy but State Commission could not have given any other amount under Money Policy as the respondent/complainant had violated Clause (3) of the exception of the terms of the policy.
3. Clause (3) of the Exception reads as under:
The Company shall not be liable in respect of loss of money
(i) xxx xxxx
(ii) xxx
(iii) Occurring in premises which at the time are closed, unless the money is in a locked safe or strongroom.
4. The money was neither in a safe nor in a strong room hence not covered under the policy. The whole case hungs on the interpretation of word 'strong room'. It was his plea that it is admitted that money was kept in an almirah which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a strong room. It is misinterpretation of this word on the part of the State Commission, which has led it to award relief in favour of the respondent/complainant, which need to be set aside. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant that it is true that money (cash) was in an almirah but it was protected by a collapsible iron gate and further by wooden door with glass and grill. The interpretation of the State Commission is correct in this context. They are not covered by the exception - hence order of the State Commission is just and proper. The appeal needs to be dismissed.
5. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the material on record, there are few disputed facts. It is not disputed that cash was not kept in the safe. It is also admitted that the office premises had two doors i.e. first is the iron collapsible grill gate and then there is wooden door with glass panes and 'grill' on it. The limited question can this arrangement be interpreted to mean this to be a strong room? The State Commission has laboured hard on this point and came to the conclusion that money was kept in a 'sufficiently strong receiptable'; room in which the money had been kept by the complainant, "would be deemed to be a strong room" State Commission has relied upon the description of strong room in the concise Oxford Dictionary as follows:
'Proof against burglars etc. for keeping valuables in'
6. If we see the arrangement in terms of the definition then the money itself should have been kept in a 'strong room' as defined above. In the instant case it is admitted fact that money was kept in the drawer of the almirah - which by no means can be said to meet the defining parameters of a strong room. The room where money was kept was not specifically protected. Protection by way of grill door/iron gate was for the whole office premises. The observation the State Commission "that the money policy was Rs. 1,00,000/- only, which amount in present terms cannot be considered to be such huge amount for which a strong room as is constructed by the banks, should be constructed" begs the question. It is no one's case that in this case the complainant should have had a strong room meeting the same requirements as in the case of a Bank. But complainant, certainly could have had a locked safe fixed in a wall to protect the money. We are not inclined to agree with the order of the State Commission which is based on conjectures and assumptions. Terms of the policy are standard for a money policy. In the instant case money policy was for Rs. one lakh which implied the State Commission to come to a conclusion of its own, but this amount could have been more. Our presumption shall not be off the mark, if we state that for larger amounts a strong room and for smaller amounts
- a locked safe is the answer.
7. An iron gate at the entrance and a wooden door with glass and grill in our view cannot be said to be a strong room, hence is covered by the Clause (3) of the Exceptions in the Money Policy. In the light of this we are unable to sustain the order of the State Commission relating to Money Policy. The order relating to loss of TV amounting to Rs. 12,025/- covered under Burglary Policy is maintainable and is ordered to be paid to the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 15% from 1.1.93 along with cost of Rs. 1500/- awarded by the State Commission. It may be out of place to mention that the respondent/complainant's premises was again broken open in August, 1993 and cash was removed from the wooden almirah, which has against been repudiated. We are not inclined to draw an adverse reference, but the respondent/complainant would be well advised to get a locked safe to ensure safe custody of his money, meeting the requirements of the Money Policy.