IMPORTANT POINT
Security Agency should be made a party in a case of robbery.

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—Counsel for the parties present. It is now transpired that on 18.12.2015, after the last date of hearing, Sh. Sanjay Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Karkardooma Courts, has directed that the recovered articles from the thieves be disposed of, meaning thereby, that the complainant will get the same. The total weight of the ornaments is 9398.600 gms. Out of the total lost items, 37 items have been recovered. To that extent, the complaint has become infructuous.

2. Arguments heard.

3. M/s. Muthoot Finance Co. Ltd., the complainant, is a registered company with RBI as a non-banking financial company. The complainant company is engaged in the business of rendering loan facilities predominantly against security of gold ornaments. They have obtained insurance policy from M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP, vide policy, marked as Anneuxre – C.

4. Unfortunately, on 10.05.2011, an incident of dacoity took place at Pandav Nagar, Delhi. FIR was lodged, intimation was given to the Opp.party. The following items and cash amounts were looted at gun point :-

“a. Gold ornaments : 9398.600 gms, having a monetary value of Rs.1,92,34,330.00 on the date of the said incident of commission of dacoity.

b. Gold Coins – 12 gms., having a monetary value of Rs.39,515.00 on the date of the said incident of commission of dacoity.

c. Cash amount of Rs.1,82,788.00.

d. It is pertinent to mention here that post-commission of the said dacoity, the complainant has settled with some of the borrowers who had pledged the said ornaments as collateral security. During the course of the said settlement, the complainant had to make payment in the sum of Rs.19,23,433/- on account of making charges, besides the amounts paid on account of the value of the gold”.

5. It was contended that a total loss of Rs.2,13,80,066/- was suffered. Some of the robbers were arrested by the police, recovery was made of some of the above said items. Order was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 12.04.2013, marked as Annexure – H.

6. There was correspondence between the parties and ultimately this complaint was filed before this Commission, on 28.01.2014, with the following prayers :-

“a) Direct the OPs to process the claim of the complainant company and consequently pay a sum of Rs. 2,13,80,066/- to the complainant company, jointly and / or severally, being the monitory value of the “claim” lodged by the complainant company, along with interest @ 12% p.a., w.e.f. 12.04.2013, till realization.

b) Award a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and against the respondents, as compensation / damages, on account of the harassment, agony, loss or reputation suffered by the complainant company due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

c) Award the cost of the present proceedings, in favour of the complainant company and against the OPs.

d) Such other / further order (s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

7. The OPs could not file the written statements within the prescribed time, therefore, the right to file the written statements was forfeited, vide detailed order dated 10.12.2015.

8. Counsel for the OPs submit that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’. In this context, he has invited our attention towards an authority of this Commission reported in M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs. M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., decided on 17.02.2015. We fully agree with the said view taken in the above referred judgment because, the insurance company was not involved in that case. Since insurance company is involved in this case, therefore, the judgment of M/s. Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., in First Appeal Nos. 159, 160 & 161 of 2004, decided on 03.12.2004, will be applicable in this case.

9. The facts of this case are entirely different