JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President :---This is a complaint made by Kishor Mastkar a proprietor of Auto Service Station, Bombay alleging the deficiency in the service of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short Insurance Company). The complainant alleged that he had hired the service of Insurance Company which provided two insurance policies viz. "fire policy" and "money in transit policy" for the period 14-5-1991 to 13-5-1992. These facts are not in dispute. The opp. party No. 2 visited the complainant and demanded the premium amount for the aforesaid two policies. The opp. party No. 2 collected the premium amount of Rs. 15,938/- from the complainant for renewal of money in transit policy valued at Rs. 50,10,000/-. It was to cover a loss upto Rs. 4,25,000/-. A copy of renewal form is at exhibit "3". The opp. party No. 2 promised to issue money-in-transit policy before its expiry on 13-5-1992. The complainant alleged that his brother Ashok repeatedly approached opp. party No. 2 for issue of money in transit policy but every time he was assured that the policy is ready and ultimately it was never handed over to complainant. The complainant further alleged that opp. party No. 2 made false statement about the preparation of money in transit policy but never issued the policy. The complainant alleged that on 20-7-1992 his business premises were attacked by the dacoit. The incident was reported with Oshiwara Police Station, Bombay vide Crime No. 455/92. The copies of F.I.R. and panchanama are annexed at Exhibit "8". On the day of incident, the complainant informed the opp. party No. 1 about an offence of dacoity and submitted his claim report and also requested to issue money in transit policy for which he had already made payment of premium. It is the case of complainant that he was shocked to learn from opp. party No. 2 that the premium amount of Rs. 15,938/- was negligently were not deposited through their Bank to opp. party No. 1 and as a result of which the opp. party No. 1 did not issue the money in transit policy. The complainant further contended that opp. party No. 2 was ready to offer the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- for his lapses but the complainant refused to accept the offer. The complainant approached through his advocate vide letter dated 5-8-1992 and requested to issue money in transit policy duly renewed. However, nothing has been done by opp. parties and therefore in this complaint the complainant alleged the deficiencies in the service of the opp. parties and claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith his claim of Rs. 3,41,994/- caused by loss in the dacoity. In response to notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act both the opp. parties filed their written versions in the month of September, 1993, while denying the complainants insurance claim. It is contended on behalf of opp. party that there is no concluded contract between the complainant and the opp. parties. However, it is admitted that the premium amount of Rs. 15,938 paid to opp. party No. 2 on 13-5-1992 was not encashed and therefore, the risks were not covered under the conditions of insurance policy. It is further contended that the complainant was never communicated the acceptance of proposal for the renewal of money in transit policy by the opp. party No. 2 and therefore, the question of payment of premium by the complainant for the renewal of money in transit policy does not arise. It is also contended that the complainant is not a consumer since he had not hired the services of the opp. parties. There are other technical objections which are not worth taking cognizance.

2. We have heard the complainant and Shri Motiwala, adv. for the opp. parties.

3. There are some vital admitted facts on record. Undisputedly, the complainant was having the fire policy and money in transit policy for the period 14-5-1991 to 13-5-1992. Similarly, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 15,938/- by cheque to opp. party No. 2 towards the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document