IMPORTANT POINT
Claim can be settled only within four corners of policy.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.09.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. CC/06/167, filed by the present appellant, vide which, the said complaint were ordered to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants M/s. Jagruti Securities Limited are a registered share-broker and a trading member of the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (BSE) and also registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). They are engaged in trading in shares and securities on behalf of their clients like the financial institutions, individual investors, sub-brokers and other general public. The Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE, Mumbai) has been taking insurance cover, known as “Special Contingency Policy” from the opposite party (OP) ‘United India Insurance Company’ in order to protect their members against possibility of various risks involved in the share trading business. A policy bearing No. 020300/46/1/39/80117/2000 for an aggregate sum assured of Rs.200 crores, covering the period from 01.07.2000 to 30.06.2001, had been taken by the BSE from the OP Insurance Company. The aforesaid policy covered the risks for the transactions done prior to the commencement of the Policy, but after the retroactive date, i.e., after 01.07.1996. It was also stipulated that the claim would be payable subject to the financial loss having occurred after retroactive date, but discovered during the period of policy, i.e., from 01.07.2000 to 30.06.2001.

3. It is stated that the complainant in their normal course of business, sold 1100 and 43,400 shares of a company called M/s. ANCO Communication Limited during the period 09.10.99 to 16.10.99 and from 07.12.99 to 29.12.99 under settlement No. A/3099 and A/3899 to A/4199 on behalf of a sub-broker, M/s. Midas Financial Consultant and Services. At that time, the said 44,500 shares were delivered in physical condition and received by the insured from the sub-broker M/s. Midas Financial Consultant and Services. They were further delivered by the complainant to BSE on 06.01.2000. The complainant stated that they had also confirmed the genuineness of the physical share certificates from M/s. ANCO Communication Limited, prior to delivering the same to BSE. On 19.04.2000, the complainant received 1000 shares out of 44,500 shares as PATAWAT objection from Bad Delivery Cell of the BSE, stating that 1000 shares with identical certificate and distinctive numbers were delivered by another BSE broker. The complainant immediately informed the sub-broker and they arranged to deliver another 1000 shares of M/s ANCO Communication Limited to the BSE. The issue was also taken-up with M/s. ANCO Communication Limited.

4. Further, at a later stage, other shares of the company were also received back from the Bad Delivery Cell of the BSE. The complainant requested the sub-broker to rectify the shares, but they were not able to do so due to financial crisis. The complainant was forced to rectify the shares themselves due to which they suffered loss of Rs.29,39,125/-.

5. The complainant further stated that intimation about the loss was given to the OP Insurance Company as per the terms and conditions of the policy and claim filed with them. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance company which submitted their report on 19.04.2002. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the claimant vide letter dated 17.12.2004. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to pay the claim of Rs.29,38,125/- with interest @18% p.a. from the date of loss till the date of order and further interest @18% p.a. from the date of order t