The specific/substantive provision of an insurance policy clause overrides the general provision, and compliance with regulatory guidelines is crucial in determining liability.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, (P.M) - The Gurgaon Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Civil Lines, Gurgaon, the complainant, is a Co-operative Bank, who were holders of "Banker's Indemnity Insurance Policy" with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP, for the period from 01.07.1996 to 30.06.1997 for a sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs in case of loss of money in transit. Para B of the said Policy, unequivocally, provides, as under :-

"B. IN TRANSIT : by reason of any money and/or Securities being lost, stolen, mislaid, misappropriated or made away with, whether, due to the negligence or fraud of the employees of the insured or otherwise, whilst in transit, in the hands of such employees, such risk of transit to commence from the moment the same is received by the employee on behalf of the insured and to continue until delivery thereof, at destination".

2. Unfortunately, on 11.09.1996, a car of the complainants carrying Rs. 48.00 lakhs in cash, from State Bank of India, Mehrauli, Gurgaon to the Branch Office of the complainants at Wazirabad, was robbed in transit near Jharsa Village, Opp. Housing Board Colony, Gurgaon. FIR was got registered with Gurgaon Police Station on the same day. The OP was also apprised of this fact. The incident of robbery was covered within the policy. The complainants wrote about 20 reminders, but the OP turned a deaf ear to the same.

3. The OP, vide letter dated 29.05.2001, after the expiry of four years and eight months', repudiated the claim of the complainants as "No Claim". The portion germane to the present controversy, runs as follows:

"(i) As per the departmental enquiry conducted by the Insured according to which the Gunman, Mr. Attar Singh was guilty of driving the vehicle of which he was the Gunman (Escort), which confirms that according to the insured also Gunman was not supposed to drive the vehicle. He was only required to act as Proper Escort, within the meaning of the expression used in Regulation No.8 of the Manual for Urban Co-operative Banks, issued by RBI. Once a Guard becomes a driver, he ceases to be a Guard, the purpose of the armed Escort got defeated when the Guard worked as a Driver of the car, with his weapon on adjoining seat. The loss of cash to insured has resulted because of the negligent act or omission of employee of the insured. The Gunman by driving the vehicle acted in breach of Regulation No.8 of the Manual for Urban Co-operative Banks which was a part of policy condition.

(ii) That exception (i) of the policy reads 'the Company shall not be liable in respect of "(b) losses resulting wholly or partially from any negligent act or omission of the insured employee".

The Gunman, Attar Singh, deputed by the insured has failed to use the cars which a reasonably prudent and careful Gunman would use under similar circumstances because he was driving the vehicle when was duty bound to work as an Escort/Gunman, with the cash. The Gunman, Attar Singh, has not acted as a proper Escort within the meaning of the term used in the Manual issued by the RBI.

(iii) The insured - Bank has committed breach of the policy conditions, i.e., requiring that the rules, regulations and directions as stipulated by the RBI and as are described by insured Bank as regards the Security arrangements.

(iv) Sh. Ram Lal, Clerk-cum-Cashier of the Bank, who was deputed by insured to get cash Rs. 40.00 lakhs in car on 11.09.1996, ran away at the time the Robbers drove away in car with cash Rs. 40.00 lakhs and his failure to assist the Gunman speaks of his negligent act in terms of exception (b) of the Insurance Policy.

(v) Sh. The insured failed to give any cogent evidence till date to the Insurer to substantiate the claim & to prove that they have not violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

So, we regret our inability to entertain the claim and the claim file is being closed as "NO CLAIM".

4. It is averred that the action of the OP amounts to unfair trade practise as the claim of the complainant as per provision of policy sta