National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. A P Securitrans Pvt. Ltd. on 13 April, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 30.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.04.2026
FIRST APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2017
(From the order dated 28.09.2016 in CC No. 205/2009 of the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi)
United India Ins. Co. Ltd.
Delhi Regional Office
Kanchenjunga Building
8th Floor, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001 Appellant (s)
Versus
M/s A.P.Securitrans Pvt. Ltd.
267z Satya Niketan
Ring Road,
New Delhi-110021 Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE DR. INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Maibam N Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mandeep Singh Kapoor, Advocate
ORDER
DR, INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 28.09.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 205/2009, inter alia praying for setting aside the order/judgment passed by the State Commission in CC/205/2009.
2. The Appellant was Opposite Party before the State Commission and the Respondent was Complainant in the said CC/205/2009 before the State RP301 OF 2017 Page 1 of 18 Commission. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 05.10.2017. Parties filed their Written Arguments/Synopsis on 30.08.2023 (Appellant) and 16.05.2024 & 09.04.2026 (Respondent) respectively.
3. The First Appeal has been filed with a delay of 78 days (as per Registry's calculations). The Appellant has filed IA/2152/2017 for condonation of delay. This IA was allowed vide this Commission's order dated 21.08.2019 and the delay was condoned.
4. The brief facts of the case as presented by the Complainant are that the Complainant/Respondent herein had taken a Money Insurance Policy from the Appeilant/Insurance Company for the period from 01.09.2006 to 31.08.2007. On 23.05.2007, the Complainant assigned the work to load and supervise the ATM of HDFC Bank at Shipra Mall Ghaziabad, U.P. to its two employees/custodians, namely, (1) Mr. Vijay Kumar and (2) Mr. Sanjay Raghav (Mr. Rajesh Prasad and Mr. Sanjay Raghav were working as custodians for this ATM, but as Mr. Rajesh Prasad was on leave on this day, in his place another custodian, Mr. Vijay Kumar went for cash replenishment with Mr. Sanjay Raghav on this day). On 24.05.2007 guard of the said ATM was found dead. HDFC Bank officials called the custodians of the Complainant to open the ATM to audit the amount. On audit, it was found that an amount of Rs. 19,03,800/- was short. The Bank informed the same to the Complainant/Respondent. The locks of the ATM machine were intact, no breaking open of the locks or damage to the said ATM machine were found, which confirm that no theft was committed from the said ATM but was a case of mis-appropriation of amount by the employees of the custodians of the complainant as the combination numbers to open the lock of the ATM was only with the said custodians. On receiving the intimation of the alleged loss from the Complainant, the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor/investigator Mr. R.G. Varma for investigation and assessment of loss. After receiving the report of Surveyor, the Insurance Company repudiated the RP301 OF 2017 Page 2 of 18 claim on 07.03.2008 on the ground that i) loss occurred from the ATM machine after cash was deposited, and the policy does not cover ATM cash contents which means cash kept in the ATM are not covered in the policy, ii) the insured has not taken reasonable steps to safeguard/handling the ATM properly. Aggrieved by the repudiation of claim, the Complainant filed complaint before the State Commission.
5. The State Commission vide its order dated 28.09.2016, while allowing the Complaint, passed the following order:
"21. As a result of above discussion I find that OP has wrongfully repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs. 19,03,800/- (sum found short in ATM) alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of shortage i.e. 23.07.07 till the date of payment. I am curtailing the amount of interest included by complainant @ 18% per annum till filing the complaint. I am also curtailing the rate of interest as whole from incident to date of filing the complaint or till date of payment as in the present scenario granting of interest at the rate more than 12% per annum is not reasonable. Interest of 12% per annum takes care of harassment and cost of litigation also. Order shall be complied with within two months failing which complainant would be at liberty to approach u/s 25/27 of customer protection act."
6. The Appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the order passed by the State Commission on the following grounds:
a) State Commission has allowed the complaint without application of mind in awarding the compensation of Rs. 19,03,800/- alongwith interest. The State Commission while allowing the complaint has not properly appreciated the terms & conditions of the policy.
b) The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Insurance Company appointed the surveyor immediately on receiving the information from the insured. The State Commission failed to appreciate the report of the Surveyor, wherein it has concluded that "as per policy, only custodians i.e. entrusted to carry cash in ATMs are covered in the policy. Here cash loss occurred from the ATM machine after the cash was deposited Policy does not cover ATM cash contents RP301 OF 2017 Page 3 of 18 and it means cash kept in the ATM are not covered in the policy. So any loss from the ATM is not covered under the policy issued to the insured."
c) The State Commission has failed to appreciate that as per clause 3 of the General Conditions of the policy, the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against accident, loss or damage. As per the observations of the surveyor in survey report, 'in every ATM there is one key and two passwords to operate the ATM box. Both password is with both the custodians and are not known to each other. In the present case insured's employee Mr. Sanjay Singh Raghav and Mr. Rajesh Prasad each had the password of Shipra HDFC Bank ATM and was not authorised to share the password but on the instructions from the insured both shared their password, as such no reasonable care was taken by the insured which is a pure violation of clause No. 3 of general condition of the policy.
d) State Commission has failed to appreciate that the surveyor in his report has stated that he had verified EJ report and found that ATM was operated in the midnight around 12 O'clock of 23.05.2007 but when the surveyor verified the guest register of the HDFC Bank ATM, it was found that there was no entry or visit made by the employee Mr. Sanjay Singh Raghav or Mr. Rajesh Prasad, the visit made by both the employees were not the officials. HDFC Bank should have taken steps to recover the money from M/s Shield, such a case of loss is not covered under the policy issued to the insured/respondent.
e) The State Commission has not considered that the surveyor and the loss assessor is a technical expert and the Insurance Company is guided by the report of the surveyor who is granted license by the IRDA as per the provisions under section 64UM of the Insurance Act 1938.
RP301 OF 2017 Page 4 of 18f) The Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on the basis of the report of the Surveyor. The report of the surveyor is an important piece of document which cannot be deviated unless better evidence is led to contradict the report of the surveyor. The surveyor after considering all the vital facts of the case and statements made by the senior officials of the complainant about the entire facts of the incident, finally recommended in his report that the assessment of loss should not mean that claim is admissible.
g) The State Commission failed to appreciate that there is delay in filing FIR by 3 days which is fatal as the police could not make any immediate enquiry. No immediate information of the said incident was given to the Insurance Company which is fatal as the Complainant had left no scope for immediate enquiry of the said incident.
h) The State Commission has failed to consider the delay in filing the complaint as per the provisions under Section 24A of CP Act. The Complainant have not made any representation after the repudiation on 07.03.2008 done within the IRDA Rules and therefore limitation starts from the date of incident and not from the date of the repudiation of the claim.
i) It is clear from the record submitted by the Complainant to the Surveyor that on 23.05.2007, the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- was deposited by the custodian of the employee of the Complainant. The shortage of amount of Rs. 19,03,800/- was found only after making audit of ATM machine on 24.05.2007. The State Commission has wrongly allowed the complaint which needs to be set aside.
7. Heard both the parties.
7.1 The Appellant/ Insurance Company broadly reiterated its contentions as stated under para 6 -the grounds.
RP301 OF 2017 Page 5 of 187.2 On the other hand Complainant/Respondent herein contended that the Appellant has issued Money Insurance Policy, it included the money in transit also, wherein the infidelity coverage was extended to 1000 employees. In the Insurance Policy, it is mentioned that Fidelity Guarantee on a floating basis to cover 1000 employees. This is additional coverage, the other coverages have been defined in Section 1A, IB, IC & ID. Section IA & IB talks about transit risk, however, Section IC states Money other than described in IA & IB also collected by and in the personal custody of insured or the authorized employee of the insured whilst in transit to premises or bank within a period not exceeding 48 hours from the time of collection and vice versa. So in terms of fidelity coverage and coverage under IC the money in bank in the custody of insured remain covered for a period of 48 hours. It is further contended that admittedly, as per surveyor report clause 4.13 ownership of cash was of HDFC bank but same was in custody of the insured. It is further admitted case that on 23.05.2007, two employees of insured Sh Rajesh Prasad and Sanjay Raghav loaded the money in ATM machine as they were having the password to open tray. It is also confirmed in the report that HDFC officials could not open the same. In the night the guard was found murdered. Next day, these two people were called and audit was carried out wherein it was transpired that cash amounting Rs. 19,03,800/- was short and the said amount was deducted by HDFC from the Complainant/Respondent's company. It has come in the surveyor report that as per EJ report the ATM machine was opened unofficially by two alleged persons around 12, who were having the key and password. No theft has taken place. As such the misappropriation of money has taken place. The FIR was registered against the two employees U/S 406 IPC vide FIR No 404/2007. Both the employees were arrested and charge sheeted by the police. Their services were even terminated by the Respondent. The Respondent had continued to follow up till the statement of persons involved in the said case were recorded. The RP 301 OF 2017 Page 6 of 18 Surveyor as well as Insurance Company had overlooked that coverage was for fidelity and money held in trust also for a period of time, the surveyor has wrongly inferred that it was money in transit policy only, and based on his conclusion on that aspect and money in the custody of official of Complainant for 48 hours was covered as per Section IC. Admittedly loss has occurred within 12 hours after the money was loaded and custody of money was with insured employees only. No terms were provided with the policy even correct policy has not been filed by Appellant to mislead the Commission. The aspect of Infidelity has been explained in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. National Bulk Handling Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 10409 of 2016, wherein the aspect of fidelity was examined by the Apex Court (para 9 & 10). Accordingly, the loss was wrongly repudiated and Appeal filed by the Appellant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. As regards submission of the Insurance Company about the Complaint being time barred, the State Commission has correctly stated that the Complaint is well within the statutory time frame. In Insurance claim cases, the cause of action arise when the claim is repudiated and not from the date of incident. Hence, we are in agreement with the findings of the State Commission on the aspect of Complaint not being barred by limitation. Further, the State Commission has appropriately and correctly addressed the contentions of the Insurance Company with respect to delay in filing the FIR and informing the Insurance Company and we are in agreement with the same.
9. The basic issue in the present case centres around the interpretation of the policy, its coverage/exclusion clauses, as the claim has been repudiated on the ground that the policy does not cover ATM cash contents. The claim has been repudiated by the Insurance Company vide repudiation letter dated RP301 OF 2017 Page 7 of 18 07.03.2008 on these grounds. The said repudiation letter is reproduced below:
... ____ --
Im;.' ■ UNtTFO INDIA L%'SURA^CgCO tTKfflgM
■ -
F^rtVuT*4 o^<«; r»>-a76-j^gg
I K
ip -r |
Si* ■
O.DDA SK>PP!NG COMF1 O ' MMMMwiWMMMHMI
g«i
iaas^
.J9HB
"**■*--'SrCgar
■rfcacg*
,Sh»j ipV
f
jjtl ■ a: ll
■JKrV-inSi
A
rei
ti!
^T^uiSiLMiiiosg^
10. The grounds of the repudiation letter are based on the report of the Surveyor who has given such recommendations in his report. Extract of the relevant para of the Surveyor's report is reproduced below:
RP301 OF 2017 Page 8 of 18 EH w > ' ' '
R: "Wj^
Lh"!ji
T
1 >1
4 fct^l*rtli,lg Julate!'tl lg■
h V.« :•„: JiBSS ■:
FS?V ■/.r:;':in ,? T-\ :
.....
pTr'oa'Tl'r%:'|"^n £7 "'Tw' ** to1
I
R^'in X I'ft ?
■ *'£|®rsta.ia/:
the
PrV«dyordgr Jo. d^Stgg^rlRr^-- '
^.7 & '1j-: .
^4^- BlF
■u/- St R"'
1
n 'pF®W> /■ 'itSS
■ • •.< ■
. !'i'
■:<i l?
-= fliBWfc
I "■ i ■ ■ ■.-'
"■«
i
SBBFhI-,.'
tj:;gSj| • .**:*. • : • 1 '■
.'■i 'SB:,ai;^^<^Ua..,.jt-...?BKWu; ■ ■r3:'S;'--
roi .TMgvSg
^yfeecjTsxgotit^1
^E32^u5waS?c^SltW^^<
MMiJgania^S^aggn^r taiftagfffi Tssad^^w
ID>C1 inkitboUl STRSyeiiaMen: j^lfcfecQWrltly
SseTodSo •8BEs£
MpesuedJcLthe^wc^ibMl
:s. nno>
HB&tU
6. IMSktj •co;
4tt{- ;V ;
<--■* ...«
r •?■■
!*r iW J■ s»j~
RP301 OF 2017 Page 9 of 18
11. The Complainant/Respondent has placed on record a copy of the policy on 29.08.2025 vide diary No. 23165. Extract of the relevant paras of this policy are reproduced below:
^B®r^^rt«wrTfcr«r '• ■ jjMgtegUii ' 6rSd AA'.'ZH.atTfir.'w, kn2h<i*7st"
iaats^^W^ ■ ____________________ ■ ■'■I
-- ---------------------
4- fi
X-Om, iwumrIm &U«Opk< (1?V ! , *
i
'■
KI
ftj
kS
|Sjk-wAfu«u nwS • ■* 7-
^BafehoVorrefr-y Chat ADJi .
; I'-'
QwSr» 5c -ri
Hwilii
•!l
... f
."^IW^aEj
'■ATM riymina wg* ■»»«■ omm
1 :i
• ■v f**1 ••'■.pin- .■ wj
f. .'.aKrv:.
afcw _
tanafift-i UUbwwB
IB;
■ ■'-? gjv'-
j$- - ,J ; . »■ .£>■'- .: ■■■"
. ■•■..
\-X<;
.....................................
•■■. m ■;
• Fi . ?Lr'..
RP301 OF 2017 Page 10 of 18
R-'
)
UNITED ^DJA INSURANCE CO ZS HP
1Llg||bj
*;A'
'3lite
.*/
-teR^ -■■■■ ' S-&^
S'
Krggps*^^
^yfbrfqgljy «<t-., <:¥W-
. : . li
•' I ..■;.
ii
iEfc
?. fv-"R ' ■ i.' '
w®
h|tf«nk«ar)cM
ssffiijr'
ssrr ■'■ •■■■/
I Mill
iSii i
J
& «ZM.
r
t
':?f ■•:. -
fete
Ite/
JmSSfeMSP^
MW
_
___________
■ ■
r R-..
t"
-•mJ.'
t'
R;
SK® ai
^gilMtwMlCTMMy ed'oxlai^rtdnrbJ --"
* Jfl ?Ktelr jtS ' - -'L-'Ll* ■ h 1? J|fc ».-»•■ vi ittr? ■:■. itet _i ILIA M<V« EMM"*"** > 'I7?T h-6-'U.'' ;te ? '• .- ' < ■:-■ •' ■ t k ■' <-
'.' '• A.'-
te
R: i
•. »}ftk'■Tfe-'M
I" flL •
ttkiifc*WL'T.. ,z«< -»
Mfc-
••' < •»
Ate-
®i
mw
RP301 OF 2017 Page 11 of 18
>, | x - • 'if xx- ,--£ .»' .x -?■-. x " F xx I
\ -rsS
I
h' 'FUNI®W.N|^® i>v)
pH
Lev so.:rf»t®w*oc»i
ft '
.
.
"1g
L'>:
/ *■ mJ;
Ara<.
|®S|i '■ i-h
fifi
' TilSk-'ih
l.pMSgl
____ KT
BmlH ofinucd tWAttiMFriWHa . ■1S^r;rjitj^r*11'"* iAt-.
_____
Mlfrw«iaf tir rt^naw'it'wh^TM.fc !
Wsli
s^^Mt^-^miUKluoeUllaiBbi'D^iqtd^ '■ I
. . ' a3S- ... -
■■'■<■'■- ■ ■'«
WS-
'VU-- . £ fete
/•i,-.8S
J. • ■•■
. ■• ■
M I
•« ®FF .L
■ I :'"r ^ 4 '
i
■y '•■
bSSw- -'■ •■• '■ ^sL5..
■■■ 'js?. > >■&:.
II
»'■
S»!
SLMfrb'-i •&?
RP 301 OF 2017 Page 12 of 18
_______________________________________ :: ■. |T
5 fln:« M/ »JU ►--MJ 1
«•<>« •.'W4*
* : M. *<•* iCm »;•< tW «ui, fti *
mm • MUK
n? *
■ ■ Ofc
■ ' ;7J
. MHMr f»r'*4**:iM •Ml* »«► w'tM
a
&CM9■«'H ■»4"»««~M y« 4 < fw ara M ■» Mm
w'-:'
1*
'•'>■ Art Mifc.fi
u, ' -. ! .- -■ wk^rr^TMBW
Wite
i
a. -
12. The contention of the Insurance Company that the loss is not covered under the policy were also raised before the State Commission, but the State Commission rejecting such contention, allowed the complaint. Extract of the relevant paras of the State Commission's order are reproduced below:
17. Yet another bone ofcontention of the OP is that loss in the present case is not covered by the policy because the same is confined to theft, BHD dacoity, snatching, terrorist risk, natural calamity. The argument is misconceived. The reason that risk of insured in the policy goes on to incorporate another means of loss while in transit or safe etc. These words are wide enough to include other means of loss, Loss RP301 OF 2017 Page 13 of 18 may be on the way white in transit or it may be before the amount is put in the A TM box.
18. The counsel for the complainant rightly relied upon definition of fidelity ofguarantee down loaded by her from internet. It defines that 'fidelity guarantee1 protects employers for financial losses against employees who embezzle, commit forgery, fraud or steal directly from company. Protection offered by fidelity guarantee insurance can be designed to cover all employees or just individual worker or position within a company.
19. Counsel for the complainant also relied upon decision of this Commission in complaint case No. 295/2006 titled as Integrated Capita! Services Ltd. vs. New India Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 23.02.06 in the said case the complainant suffered huge loss on account of infidelity in one of its very trusted employee. This Commission observed in para 17 that the insurance company has developed tendency to harass the consumer to such an extent that they compel them to go to the court as they try to repudiate the claims on feeble and flimsy reason, wrongful interpretation of clause particularly by the interpretation to the disadvantage of consumer and undue advantage to themselves. Similar view has been taken by this commission in complaint case No. 20/97 titled as Ajay Industrial Corporation vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 19.03.07.
The complaint was allowed.
20. The counsei for OP vehemently submitted that complainant did not take reasonable care. He demonstrated that the two codes were with two employees Sh. Rajesh Prasad and Sh. Sanjay Raghav, one of them Rajesh Prasad was on leave and the third person Sh. Vijay Kumar was deployed in his place. According to him the code of Rajesh Prasad should not have been disclosed to Sh. Vijay Kumar. I am unable to agree. If an employee happens to be on leave it does not mean that die ATM was to be dosed. Sh. Vijay Kumar was substitute in place of Shri Rajesh Prasad, he was not a stranger, he was an employee of the complainant company, he was not an unauthorized person. The same does not fall within the mischief offailure to take reasonable care.
21. As a result of above discussion I find that OP has wrongfully repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay Rs. 19,03,800/- (sum found short in ATM) afongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of shortage i.e. 23.07.07 till RP301 OF 2017 Page 14 of 18 the date of payment. I am curtailing the amount of interest included by complainant @ 18% per annum till filing the complaint. I am also curtailing the rate of interest as whole from incident to date of filing the complaint or till date of payment as in the present scenario granting of interest at the rate more than 12% per annum is not reasonable. Interest of 12% per annum takes care of harassment and cost of litigation also. Order shall be complied with within two months failing which complainant would be at liberty to approach u/s 25/27 of consumer protection act."
13. After careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the Surveyor's report, the State Commission's order, policy document and rival contentions of the parties including the ones contained in their written notes of arguments, we hold that the loss in the present case is covered under the policy. It is admitted fact even in the Surveyor's report that the one key and two passwords to operate the ATM always remained with the officials/custodians of the Complainant company and even Bank/its officials cannot open the ATM. Further, it is not in dispute that the cash in question has either not been deposited by the two officials of the Complainant company or after deposit, they again opened the ATM and took it out, which is evident from the log showing operation of ATM at 12-00 clock in the night of 23.05.2007, although, there is no entry in the register of the ATM. Moreover, this loss was detected within 48 hrs. and the policy specifically states such a timeline of 48 hrs. in the coverage. Hence, we are not in agreement with the observations of the Surveyor in his report that the cash once put in the ATM belongs to HDFC Bank and it is the HDFC Bank of its security agency deployed (M/s Shield), who should be responsible for such a loss. No doubt, the cash in question belongs to the Bank but as the key and the two passwords always remain in the custody of the officials of the Complainant company, the Bank or its officials have no means to open the ATM. Further, there has been no forceful opening or breaking of the ATM, RP301 OF 2017 Page 15 of 18 hence, the theft has been ruled out. Hence, we hold that the loss in the present case is covered under the policy.
14. However, we would also like to address the issue of reasonable care on the part of the Complainant company and contributory negligence, if any, before we decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the policy. Surveyor's observations in this regard are contained under para 4.17 (C). Extract of which has already been reproduced in the preceding paras. Further, in para 4.12 and 4.13 of its report, the Surveyor gives the facts about the operation of the ATM, which are reproduced below :
1I 5-
AT*.' y-w 'ot
jSirt
JEJ
Str
|
■ ■
15. What emerges from the facts of this case is that ATM can be operated with one key and two passwords, which are with the two different officials of the insured company. This in a way is the system of checks and balances that one person alone cannot operate the ATM and team of two persons acts as a system of checks and balances on each other and they are not expected to share their passwords even with each other. On the date of incident i.e. 23.05.2007, the two officials, who were actually having the passwords were Mr. Rajesh Prasad and Mr. Sanjay Raghav. As Mr. Rajesh Prasad was on leave, Mr. Vijay, Kumar, another official of the insured Company was employed for cash replenishment along with Mr. Sanjay Raghav. However, it is not clear from the available records whether the insured company officially permitted Mr. Vijay Kumar to do the duty in place of Mr. Rajesh Prasad and RP301 OF 2017 Page 16 of 18 whether the password of Mr. Rajesh Prasad was officially shared by the authorised officer of the company with Mr. Vijay Kumar or Mr. Rajesh Prasad shared his password with Mr. Sanjay Raghav, the other person, who had his own password as well. Hence, it is not clear whether Mr. Vijay Kumar and Mr. Sanjay Raghav independently held their passwords without sharing with each other and whether it is only Mr. Sanjay Raghav, who went alone with two passwords and operated the ATM in the mid night and took away the cash or it is Mr. Sajay Raghav along with Mr. Vijay Kumar, who did this act or Mr. Sanjay Raghav did this act with Mr. Rajesh Prasad. Hence, to this extent, there is some element of contributory negligence on the part of the insured company. As some official being on leave is a normal phenomenon to happen in any organization, the insured company should have a standard operating procedure/instructions under which there are well defined charter of duties on the substitute officials and about sharing of the password of the employee, who is on leave, with the one who does substitute duty, and categorical statement that under no circumstances the two employees, including the one on the substitute duty are expected to share the password with each other. No such record has been placed before us by the insured company and it seems an adhoc arrangement had been working under which Mr. Vijay Kumar was deployed in place of Mr. Rajesh Prasad along with Mr. Sanjay Raghav.
16. Hence, in view of our findings on their being contributory negligence on the part of the Insurance Company, we are of the considered view that they are not entitled to 100% of the claimed loss. Hence, we hereby fix their entitlement on non-standard basis at 75% of the loss. Hence, in partial modification of the orders of the State Commission, we hereby partly allow the Complaint with directions to the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 14,27,850/- (75% of Rs. 19,03,800/-, which was found short in the ATM and which has been granted by the State Commission). Further, we are of the view that the interest rate of 12% granted by the State Commission also is on a higher side, RP301 OF 2017 Page 17 of 18 hence we reduce the interest rate also from 12% to 9%. The State Commission has allowed the interest on the claimed amount from the date of shortage i.e. 23.07.2007 till the date of payment. However, we hold that such interest is payable w.e.f. the date of repudiation i.e. 07.03.2008 till the date of actual payment.
17. Accordingly, we partially allow the First Appeal and in partial modification of the order of the State Commission, allow the Complaint with following directions:
a) Appellant/Insurance Company, which was OP before the State Commission is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 14,27,850/- (75% of Rs. 19,03,800/-) alongwith interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. 07.03.2008 (date of repudiation) till the date of actual payment.
b) This amount should be paid, within a maximum of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, the total amount payable as per this order at the end of 45 days, shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the expiry of 45 days till the date of actual payment.
18. First Appeal No. 301 of 2017 stands disposed off. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
Sd/-
( DR. INDER JIT SINGH ) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
( DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.)
MEMBER i
Jr/Bench-3/AB
RP301 OF 2017 Page 18 of 18