The insured's failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, including the requirement for immediate notice of the loss to the police and the insurance company, led to the repudiation of the claim.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member -The Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation the Respondent/Complainant herein took Cash in Transit Insurance Policy, from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the Petitioner/opposite party, which was valid for the period from 11.8.2009 to 10.8.2010. Theft took place on the night intervening 6/7.10.2009, in the premises of the Complainant, at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand. The thieves took away an amount of Rs. 1,18,246, from the safe, by breaking open the lock of the room, in which the said safe was kept. The incident was immediately reported to the concerned Police Station, on 7.10.2009 and an FIR was registered. The matter was also reported to the local branch of the OP at Haldwani. The OP repudiated the claim of the Complainant, on the ground that there was no threat or violence involved, for obtaining the keys. The OP turned a deaf ear to the several requests made by the Complainant. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant on 30.8.2011, filed a complaint before the District Forum.

2. The District Forum allowed the complaint on 20.12.2011 and directed the OP/Petitioner to pay Rs. 1,18,246 along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of repudiation i.e. 31.3.2010, till its actual payment, along with Rs. 10,000 as litigation cost.

3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the Petitioner/OP filed First Appeal (FA No 22/2012) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'state Commission'), Chandigarh, on 16.1.2012. The State Commission dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 2.5.2012.

4. Hence, the Petitioner/OP preferred this revision petition.

5. We have heard Counsel for both the parties. The Counsel for the Respondent raised objections on delay of 36 days in filing this revision. We condone the delay on the basis of reasons stated in the IA for condonation of delay.

6. On merits of this case, the Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant argued that, theft had occurred and there was no delay either in filing the FIR or giving intimation to the Insurance Company/(OP). Police arrested three persons, but theft amount was not recovered. He also submitted that, the claim of complainant was a justified one, as per terms of policy. Even the said claim was covered under risk of burglary, house breaking, dacoity, robbery and hold up.

7. The Counsel for the Petitioner/OP argued that there was no deficiency or negligence. He further drew our attention to the said insurance policy particularly, to Condition No. 4 and the Exclusion Clause which run as follows:

"The insured shall keep a daily record of the amount of Cash contained in the safe or strong room and such record shall be deposited in a secured place other than the said sale or strong room and be produced as documentary evidence in support of a claim under this policy. The keys of the safe or strong room shall not be left on the premises out of business hours unless the premises are occupied by the insured or any authorized employee if insured in which case such keys if left on the premises shall be deposited in a secured place not in the vicinity of the safe or strong room. The insured shall keep a daily..... The policy does not cover loss of cash abstracted from safe/strong room or any duplicate there of belonging to the insured unless such key has been obtained by threat or violence."

8. Therefore, we are of considered view that the insured had not taken all reasonable precautions for safety of the property which was insured. In the instant case, admittedly, the keys were taken from below the pillow of the employee, without the use of any threat or violence. Thus, simply because the things were stolen, will not make the insurer liable, unless the essential ingredients i.e. use of violence and/or threat , is missing. Further, the keys were not kept at safe place and the keys lying below the pillow, were easily accessible. Thus, the keys were taken from under the pillow of the concerned employee of the Respondent and thereaft