IMPORTANT POINT
Parties are bound by terms and conditions of insurance policy.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short “the State Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 46 of 2007 – Navsarjan Industrial Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. by which, complaint was allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent is a Co-operative bank registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. The opposite party/appellant had insured the complainant by Bankers Indemnity Policy. The complainant had paid Rs. 29,096/- on 22.5.2003 for insurance coverage to the extent of Rs. 40,00,000/- i.e. basic sum insured Rs. 5,00,000/- on premises, Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- for additional sum insured on transit. The said policy was renewed as stated in para 4 of the complaint for risk covering to the extent of Rs. 50,00,000/- i.e. basic sum insured Rs. 5,00,000/- additional sum insured on premises Rs. 25,00,000/- and additional sum insured on transit Rs. 20,00,000/-. The policy was supplied by the OP, but the terms and conditions of the policy were not supplied. It was also stated that the complainant was previously insured by National Insurance Company Limited and also United India Insurance Company Limited but on assurance of better services and terms and conditions, the complainant bank had transferred all their insurance business to the OP. The complainant bank had entered into contract with M/s. Prasad and Company for security services at the bank and also at bank’s attached property at borrower’s place. The security contractor was duty bound to provide guard when the office/ staff employees go for cash withdrawal as and when required. It was practice of the bank to send two clerks along with the security guard with necessary cheque through private vehicle. The cash used to be put in a trunk while returning. On 13.9.2005, two clerks of bank Shri Ishwarbhai Patel and Shri Pareshbhai Bokaria alongwith guard Shri Revadas Haridas Rohit had gone for withdrawal of Rs. 20,00,000/- from State Bank of India in hired auto rickshaw No. GJ-5-Y-7685 owned by one Babubhai Parkar. The cheque bearing No. 219195 was encashed and amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- withdrawn and put in the trunk. While returning, near Mahavir Cinema, two unknown persons came on bike like vehicle and opened fire through their revolver injuring the guard Shri Revadas. They threatened the employees and robbed the trunk which was locked. Revadas was taken to hospital and FIR was registered with the police. The formal intimation was given to the OP- insurer also. The bank had lodged claim for indemnification of loss under the policy on 17.9.2005. The insurer had appointed M/s. Parimal R. Shah and Co. as surveyors. The bank has supplied all necessary papers even certificate-cum-final report from police authority- which was supplied around January, 2006. The claim came to be repudiated on 11.1.2007 on a flimsy ground i.e. breach of condition 5 (b) of the policy. According to the complainant condition 5 (b) of the policy was never brought to their notice and that condition 5 (b) was a unique condition which was not there in the bank indemnification policies. The complainant was not supplied entire contract of insurance and as such condition 5 (b), if any, was not applicable to its claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP resisted complaint, admitted issuance of cover note on 22.5.2003 and further renewal in 2004 and 2005. Fact of robbery on 13.9.2005 was not disputed and lodging of FIR was also not disputed. It was further submitted that OP appointed surveyor and submitted that on account of breach of terms and conditions of policy, claim was rightly repudiated as complainant breached Condition No. 5 (b) of the policy pertaining to two guards with fire arms with cash. It was further submitted that complainant has not mentioned regarding non-receip