Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member and Anup K Thakur, Member
Rama Gupta and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.296 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 2378/2007 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 18.1.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.P. Sahay, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
There is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986- section 21(b)- Insurance- complainants through proprietor obtained a Shop Keeper Insurance Policy effective from 20.12.2002 to 19.12.2003 – Coverage included money insurance, fire, burglary, personal accident with names, public liability and suchlike- One of the complainant no.3 robbed at Varanasi for which FIR was lodged- Claims negated by OPs, against which complaint has been filed- Varanasi is beyond radius of fifteen miles from the insured premises - Revision petition is dismissed.
Held: We have gone through the record. Admittedly, even, as per the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioners have nowhere taken the plea in their complaint that the terms and conditions of the policy were not explained to them at the time of taking the policy and were not provided to him even after taking the policy. They have also not taken this stand before the District Forum or the State Commission and they have only taken up the plea for the first time in the revision petition. The District Forum in their order have clearly observed as under:
“On perusal of the available evidence, affidavits and considering the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties thoroughly it comes to conclusion that the complainant had got policy with the opposite party under the terms and conditions of transit policy no. 3 (k) in relation to its cash dealings for purchase and sale of medicines, whose policy number was 42010/48/02/000875”.
The District Forum has only observed that:
“the policy form as evidence is not filed in the file, only signed form mentioning the terms and condition no. 3 of the policy, no appraisal of correct facts could be made”.
We have seen that section III (a) reads as under:
Section III – Money Insurance
“The company will indemnify the insured in respect of-
1. Loss by accident of misfortune whilst the insured money is in his hands or in the hands of his employees in transit between any two places within a radius of fifteen miles from the insured premises”.
Admittedly, in this case, the cash was stolen from the carry-bag of complainant no. 3 at Varanasi Bus stop where he had gone to collect some medicines. M/s Ashish Medical Agency the petitioner no.2, the insured is based at Fatehpur, and, hence, Varanasi is definitely beyond a radius of fifteen miles from the insured premises.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost. (Paras 9 to 13)
Result: Revision petition is dismissed.
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 28.10.2016 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 2378 of 2007.
2. The facts of the case as per the petitioners/ complainants are that the petitioner/ complainant - M/s Ashish Medical Agencies through its proprietor Smt Rama Gupta obtained a Shop Keeper Insurance Policy bearing no. 420102/48/02/ 00875 which was effective from 20.12.2002 to 19.12.2003. The description of perils, among other things, covered money insurance, not exceeding Rs.50,000/- per carrying. The insurance also covered fire and allied perils to the extent of Rs.6.00 lakh, burglary to the extent of Rs.6.00 lakh, money insurance in counter Rs.6,000/-, paddle cycles for Rs.1,400/-, baggage insurance for Rs.12,000/-, personal accident with names for Rs.50,000 + Rs.1,00,000 + 50,000 + 50,000 = totalling to Rs.2,50,000/- and public liability for Rs.16,000/-. The insured deposited the premium on time and consequently the policy bond was issued.
3. It was alleged that on 05.09.2003, the complainant no.3 – Shri Sandeep Agrahari had gone to Varanasi in order to purchase some medicines. He was carrying a sum of Rs.52,700/- in cash with him. At Varanasi, he paid a sum of Rs.13,000/- to M/s Chaurasia Agencies towards balance against the previous purchases and Rs.19,281/- towards the cost of medicines which were freshly purchased, totalling to Rs.32,281/-. On his way back, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was stolen from his carry-bag at Varanasi Bus Shop, Varanasi. He lodged an FIR on returning to Fatehpur. The matter was investigated. The IO of Police Station: Sigra, Varanasi submitted Final report in the matter which was accepted by the Hon’ble Court in due course of time. The police failed to apprehend the accused or recover the stolen amount of Rs.20,000/-. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed for indemnifying the loss suffered by the insured agency. The insurer appointed Shri Deepak Kumar as Surveyor/ Loss Assessor. He submitted his report on 17.03.2004 in which he had opined that the loss of cash of Rs.20,000/- took place at Varanasi which was beyond the place under coverage of the insurance. The claim petition was repudiated in view of sub clause (a) of Section III (Money Insurance) of the terms and conditions of the Shop Keepers Insurance Policy. Aggrieved by the said repudiation, a complaint case no. 561 of 2005 was preferred before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur Nagar, UP, with the following prayer:
(a) The petitioners/ complainant be kindly allowed payment of Rs.31,000/- and as loss and interest there on at 24% interest from the date of the loss to the date of the payment from the opposite parties;
(b) Cost of the complaint with special expenses be kindly allowed from the respondent/ opposite parties;
(c) Any other compensation which are in the interest of justice be granted to the petitioners/ complainants from the respondent/ opposite parties.
4. The respondents/ opposite parties in their reply admitted that the insurance of the alleged shop of the complainant was obtained. The terms and conditions of the Shop Keepers Policy were stipulated in writing. It has been mentioned clearly in the terms and conditions, i.e., Section III that the insurance company was liable to make good for any sort of incident only within the 15 miles limit of the insured shop. The alleged incident of the petitioners had occurred at Varansai, hence, the loss was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy. In the bills of medicines presented by the petitioners, 05.09.2003 was written over writing on the date. It was not clear from the presented Roadways Bus Ticket as to what was the to and fro destination of the ticket and the date was also not clear. Therefore, it was also not clear that the presented ticket was of the date of the incident. Therefore, the claim of the petit
