Interpretation of insurance policy provisions and the requirement for money to be kept in a locked safe or similar secure place to be covered under the policy.

ORDER

S.C. Vyas, President - The order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 155/07 on 8.1.2008, directing the appellant to pay to the respondent Rs. 59,735 as per terms of insurance policy along with Rs. 2,000 by way of compensation, cost of Rs. 500 is under challenge in this appeal, preferred by Insurance Company.

2. Admittedly the shop of the respondent/complainant was insured by the appellant for a period from 26.7.2006 to 25.7.2007 under Shopkeepers' Insurance Policy, Annesure A1, which is an admitted document. There was house-breaking and burglary in the intervening night of 12.12.2006 and 13.12.2006. As per case of the complainant property valued to Rs. 59,735 including cash was stolen by miscreants, so this amount was payable by Insurance Company.

3. While Insurance Company in the written version has denied any liability for payment under that insurance policy on the ground that as per terms of the policy money was insured only in 3 conditions and these conditions were not fulfilled in the facts of the present case, so the claimed amount was not payable. It has been admitted that Surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 59,735, but it was found that this money is not payable by the Insurance Company because the same was not kept in a Safe or in a Almirah or Cupboard, which was locked.

4. Learned District Forum has considered material placed before it and ultimately on the basis of report of the Surveyor and as per claim of the complainant, allowed the complaint and awarded Rs. 59,735 as stated hereinabove.

5. The main contention raised by learned Counsel for the appellant before this Commission is that the policy which was issued to the complainant was Shopkeepers' Policy and different articles were insured under certain conditions. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Commission towards section-wise premium details, given in the policy and submitted that under Section 2 "Burglary and House-breaking was covered for all contents in the premises sited at the above address". He submitted that under this standard terms of the Shopkeepers' Policy, as per Section 2 in the head Burglary and House-breaking for Contents of Shop, "money and valuables are not included and such cover is comprising stock-in-trade and F.F.F. excluding money and valuables". He also submitted that so far as the money is concerned, for its insurance the provison of Sections 3A, 3B and 3C are applicable, which have been specified in the policy itself and the premium has been charged accordingly. He submitted that for money insurance sum insured was Rs. 40,000 for money in transit not exceeding Rs. 1,00,000 and for money in Safe sum insured was Rs. 15,000, whereas for money in Till and Counter the insurance cover was of Rs. 10,000 and lastly for Baggage Insurance it was for Rs. 5,000. He submitted that as per Sub-clause (a)(ii) of this section for the purpose of covering loss under Money Insurance Policy it is necessary that the money should be "contained in locked safe, steel cupboards, cash box and/or such other places under lock and key". He submitted that this condition has not fulfilled in the facts of the present case and so nothing was payable.

6. To counter these arguments learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that standard terms of Shopkeeprs' Policy were never supplied to the respondent and so he was not aware of any such terms or of the fact that these terms are part of the policy. He submitted that the money was inside the shop and the shop was fully locked. The incident happened during night hours, when the shop was in locked condition, the iron shutter was in fully down condition and was locked so entire shop was converted into a safe and looking to these conditions, this cannot be said that the money was not in the locked condition and was not safe.

7. We have considered these arguments. We have also considered sta