IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance claim cannot be rejected on specious plea of violation of RBI Directives.

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member—The petitioner Janki Forex was allegedly granted a licence dated 05.12.2000 by Reserve Bank of India, authorising it to undertake money changing business at six offices mentioned in the said licence. The aforesaid licence of the petitioner was issued by RBI in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of FEMA Act, 1999. The petitioner obtained an insurance policy for the period from 29.06.2002 to 28.06.2003, which inter-alia covered theft of the money except wages and salary in direct transit between any two places. The case of the petitioner is that on 29.07.2002, one of its employees carried US$ 42950 in the form of American Express travellers cheques to Anaiyur village near Sivakasi to be delivered to Coronation Security Printers Pvt. Ltd. The travellers cheques were allegedly stolen while in transit. A complaint is alleged to have been lodged at Thiruthangal Police Station on 30.07.2002, but the stolen travellers cheques were not recovered.

2. A claim was lodged with the Insurance Company for reimbursement of the loss suffered by the petitioner. However, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the petitioner had violated the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India by carrying money to the place where it was sought to be delivered. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the same ground on which the claim had been repudiated by it.

3. Vide its order dated 31.05.2007, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.01.2011, the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that the complaint was dismissed primarily on two grounds, the first being that as per the insurance policy, the loss on account of theft of the travellers cheques was covered only if the said travellers cheques were encashed within three months of being stolen. The second ground for dismissal of the complaint was that the insurance policy covered the loss only if the foreign exchange was carried from one office of the petitioner to another and the loss was not covered if the foreign exchange was sought to be delivered to the place of the customer. It was also held by the Fora below that carrying foreign exchange business outside the six offices mentioned in the licence issued by the Reserve Bank of India would be in violation of the provisions of FEMA, 1999.

5. As regards encashment of the travellers cheques, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that during pendency of this revision petition they have received a copy of the letter dated 13.08.2002 sent to them by American Express Bank, Gurgaon certifying therein that the travellers cheques in question had been encashed. Since the above referred letter was issued within three months of the loss of the travellers cheques, the said loss according to the learned counsel is duly covered under the insurance policy, however, since the letter dated 13.08.2002 purporting to have been sent to the petitioner by American Express Bank, Gurgaon has not been proved, the learned counsel seeks remanding of the matter to the concerned District Forum in order to enable him to prove the aforesaid letter.

6. As regards the scope of the licence issued to the petitioner for undertaking money changing business, the learned counsel submits and in my view rightly so that if the transaction of changing the Indian currency into foreign currency was carried out at one of the offices of the petitioner listed in the licence issued by Reserve Bank of India and travellers cheques are sought to be delivered to the customers only as a consequence of the said tr