Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
National Insurance Company Ltd. —Appellant
versus
M/s. Ganesha International —Respondent
First Appeal No.944 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 20/05/2016 in Complaint No. 284/2011 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 11.3.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. Jyoti Nagpal, Advocate for Mr. Niraj Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vibhor Garg, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Exclusion clause should be interpreted strictly.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(a)(ii)—Insurance-robbery-the complainant is businessman-took special contingency policy from the appellant-certain special conditions incorporated in the policy-robbery of cash in transit-authorised employee of the complainant were carrying the said cash—Claim repudiated on the ground that the transit was to be done in the own conveyance of the insured—Defence of “commercial purpose” and breach of the term of the policy taken—State Commission allowed the complaint—Hence, appeal—Special Conditions in the policy considered—Held, that this special condition was only for gold and not for cash, and hence, not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Held: Further, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the surveyor has assessed the net loss as Rs.25,65,000/- after adjusting the policy excess and therefore at the most only this amount could have been allowed by the State Commission. (Para 10)
Held further, the interest can be given only from the date of complaint and not from the date of incident. 7% interest is reasonable.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
The present first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Opposite Party against the order dated 20.05.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (in short ‘the State Commission’), passed in Complaint No.284 of 2011 whereby the State Commission directed the OPs to pay the principal amount of Rs.27, 00, 000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. The State Commission also awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Complainant/respondent.
2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of present first appeal are that the complainant is a sole proprietorship concern dealing in bullion gold/silver jewellery and export of handicrafts. Complainant took a special contingency insurance from OP/appellant vide policy no. 361500/46/08/9500000165 for the period 11.08.2008 to 10.08.2009. The risk covered were burglary cover, transit cover, larceny, housebreaking, robbery cover etc. Special contingency terms were that insurance was for Rs.2.50 crore for cash/bullion in locked safe, Rs. 47.50 crore for cash/bullion in transit. Special condition was that gold would be carried in the insured’s own conveyance with adequate security and proper accounting of stock. On 19.6.2009, robbery of Rs. 27 lacs in cash occurred in transit when authorized employees of the complainant namely Sh. Narender Kumar Singhal and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar were carrying the said cash. They had taken an auto rickshaw from complainant’s office to Chandni Chowk to deposit the money in SBI, Chandni Chowk in the bank account of the complainant. Two persons on bike obstructed the auto rickshaw and took away the total cash. Complainant informed police and FIR no. 133 dated 19.6.2009 was registered. The OP was duly intimated about the said incident on 19.6.2009 through email and by hand written communication which was received by OP on 22.6.2009. The claim form was signed and filled and submitted along with copy of FIR. Surveyor was appointed and all the documents were duly presented and handed over to them by the complainant. Complainant alleges that it took insurer 100 months to adjudicate the claim. On 20.12.2010, the insurer intimated the complainant that his claim has been closed because of violation of policy condition that transit was to be done in own conveyance of insured.
3. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State commission for claim of Rs. 27 lacs as principal amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of incident till realization.
4. OP filed written statement raising preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer as it is commercial enterprises and had taken the policy for commercial purpose. OP averred that at the time of alleged incident, cash was being carried in an auto rickshaw as stated by the complainant and hence there was breach in terms of policy.
5. State Commission, however allowed the complaint as under:—
“As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed, OPs are directed to pay Rs.27 lacs as principal amount alongwith interest @12% per annum from 19.06.2009/date of accident till date of payment. Since the OP has been dragging unnecessarily the matter for seven years from 2009 to 2016, it must have caused immense mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence, OP is directed to pay Rs.two lacs as compensation for harassment and mental agony. The order must be complied within 30 days failing which complainant will be entitled to invoke Section 25/27 Consumer Protection Act.”
6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, OP has preferred the present appeal.
7. Heard the Learned counsel for both the parties and perused record. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 20.12.2010 of the insurance company on the ground that the cash was being transited by the representative of the complainant on an auto rickshaw against the special condition that it was to be carried on the vehicle owned by the complainant. This is as
