Back
2009(2) CPR 381 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd. –Petitioner
versus
Ravi Traders –Respondent
Revision Petition No.1160 of 2005
and 1161 of 2005
Decided on 30-4-2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate for Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ravindra Bana, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where insured reached bank premises and placed money in tray of cashier for deposit, money could not be said to be in transit and covered under risk of policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Insurance Claim—Policy covering risk of money in transit—Employee of insured reached bank to deposit Rs.70,000/- and put the money on cash tray to be given to cashier—To attend a call from some unknown, employee went aside and money was taken away to some body—Whether money was said to be in transit and covered under policy risk? No.
Held: It is an admitted position that on 07.05.2002, the employee of the respondent went to the State Bank of India, Balghat Branch, which is within the radius of 15 miles from the insured premises, to deposit the sum of Rs. 70,000/-. On reaching the Bank, the employee of the respondent put the money on the cash tray to be given to the cashier. Thus, at this stage, the money was neither in the hands of the insured nor in the hands of the employee of the insured. After keeping the money on the tray, the employee left the counter for some work and when he returned, the money was found missing. From the undisputed facts, as stated above, it is clear that money was put in the room counter of the cashier in plastic tray. Putting the money in the tray of the cashier for handing over to the cashier of the Bank is normal procedure/practice for handing over the money to the Bank for deposit of money. The money stood handed over or was entrusted to the Bank for depositing/crediting to the account of the insured in the Bank and, thus, it cannot be said that the money was in transit as per the Insurance Policy conditions when the loss allegedly occurred.
The money was in transit only upto the point till it was put in the tray for deposit. When the money was stolen, the money was neither in the hands of the insured nor in the hands of the employee of the insured. Clause (a) of Section III of the Policy provides that the Insurance Company shall indemnify the insured in respect of the loss or incident or misfortune while the money is in the hands of the owner or in the hands of the employee while in transit between the two places within a radius of 15 miles from the insured premises. It would be seen from the facts of the present case that the money was no longer in transit as the employee had reached the destination where the money was to be deposited and had, in fact, put the money in the tray of the cashier for being handed over. After the putting of the money in the tray, the money was no longer in transit. Once the money reached the counter table of the cashier, the transit came to an end. The money was lost because of the negligence of the employee but for that Bank can be held responsible and not the Insurance Company. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not impleaded the Bank as a party respondent on whom the liability, if at all, could be fastened.
From the reading of clause (a) of Section III of the Policy and the facts above, it is clear that the incident of loss of money completely falls outside the scope of the terms and conditions of Section III of the Policy and that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the claim. In our considered view, the State Commission misinterpreted clause (a) of Section III of the Insurance Policy. (Paras 11 to 13)
Result: Revision allowed.
Ashok Bhan, President—National Insurance Company Limited-petitioner herein, which was the Opposite Party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Balghat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’ for short), has filed these Revision Petitions against the Order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short).
2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are:
The dispute in the present case arose on account of repudiation of claim of the respondent-insured by the petitioner in respect of the cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- which was lost in Bank premises where the money was taken by an employee of the respondent-insured. It appears that the said employee had put the money on the cashier’s counter in the tray but before it could be collected by the cashier, the said employee under a call from some unknown persons, left the counter for a while and, on return, found that the money was missing/stolen. On being informed, petitioner appointed Mr. Radheyshyam Gupta as Surveyor, who, after holding a detailed inquiry, vide his Report dated 16.08.2002, reached at the following conclusion:-
“Money was said to be put in the room of cashier on its table in Plastic Tray. Hence, at the time of loss, money was neither in the hands of the insured or nor in the hands of its employees. It was also not transit from shop to bank.”
3. Based on the above Report, the petitioner repudiated the claim of the respondent.
4. Aggrieved against the repudiation of the claim by the petitioner, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. District Forum vide its Order dated 26.12.2003, dismissed the complaint holding that as the carrier of the money had reached its destination and put the money in the tray of the cashier, the money was no longer in transit.
5. Aggrieved against the Order passed by the District Forum, the respondent filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned Order. The State Commission came to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable to hold that money, when stolen from the cash counter of the Bank, was still “in transit” within the meaning of clause (a) of Section III of the Policy. It was observed as under:
“In the instant case, the object of carrying the money from insured’s place to the said bank was to deposit the same and obviously the purpose of the policy was to indemnify the loss, if any, caused to the insured in respect of the said money during this transaction i.e. taking of the money from his premise and depositing the same with the bank. The process of transition was not over unless the money was actually delivered to the cashier and deposited by the latter in the appellant’s account. It would not be therefore unreasonable to hold that the money when stolen from the cash counter of the bank was still “in transit” within the meaning of clause (a) of Section III of the policy already extracted hereinabove.”
6. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.
7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Insurance Company contends that once money is put on the counter of the cashier in a plastic tray for handing over to the bank, no longer remains money in “transit” as it has already reached its destination. After reaching the bank premises, the transit came to an end. Counsel for the petitioner contends that clause (a) of Section III of the Policy speaks of “transit between any two places” and, in the instant, the process of transition was over no sooner the money reached the other place, i.e., the Bank and, in any event, after putting the money in the tray of the Bank for handing over to the cashier of the Bank which is the normal procedure/practice for handing over the money to the bank for depositing/crediting to the account of the insured. The money stands handed over or entrusted to the Bank for depositing/crediting to the account
