Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R. Regupathi, President, A.K. Annamalai, J.M and P. Bakiyavathi, Member
V.K.C.CREDIT AND FOREX SERVICES PVT. LTD, 1ST FLOOR, AISHWARYA COMPLEX, NO.1, WEST ROAD, WEST C.I.T.NAGAR, M/S.K.RAVIKUMAR CHENNAI - 35 - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, RATHNA BUILDING, M/S. B. GOPALAN 372, T.T.K.ROAD, ALWARPET, CHENNAI -18. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 574 of 2010 (Against the order in CC.No.63 of 2007, dated 27.04.2010 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)
Decided on : 14-01-2015
K. Ravikumar, Advocate, for the Appellant; B. Gopalan, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of insurance policy terms, the requirement for reporting new branches, and the liability of the insurer in case of loss between branches.
Headnote:
Insurance - Policy Coverage - Various Acts and Sections - [Forex services, Consumer complaint, Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d)] - The court discussed the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the coverage of branches, the requirement for reporting new branches, and the liability of the insurer in case of loss between branches. The court also considered the interpretations of the Insurance Act, 1938, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 45 of the Insurance Act and various definitions under the Consumer Protection Act. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the policy terms, the requirement for reporting new branches, and the liability of the insurer in case of loss between branches.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a complainant, filed a complaint against the opposite party regarding the loss of traveller cheques covered under an insurance policy. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, leading to the appellant filing an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loss between branches was not covered under the policy terms, and there was no liability on the part of the insurer to settle the claim. The court also considered the interpretations of the Insurance Act, 1938, and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in reaching its decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the coverage of branches, the requirement for reporting new branches, and the liability of the insurer in case of loss between branches.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the loss between branches was not covered under the policy terms, and there was no liability on the part of the insurer to settle the claim. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the policy terms, the requirement for reporting new branches, and the liability of the insurer in case of loss between branches.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum.
ORDER
Thiru A.K. Annamalai Judicial Member - The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying for to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.63/2007, dated 27.04.2010.
1. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.12.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant having Forex services dealing with various money transactions including foreign currencies, Travellers Cheques, Cash etc. obtained a policy from the opposite party covering the risk upto Rs. 23,25,00,000/- continued the policy for the year 2002-2003 covering the branch offices with the risk coverage restricted to defined mishaps occurring during transit between the declared addresses for the specific limit of coverage for every branch, compulsory reporting of addresses of existing branches as well as opening of new branches and submission of statement relating to the transactions and accordingly a new policy was issued on 23.6.2003 for the sum being Rs. 20 crores on payment of premium of Rs. 1.10 lakh's with condition under the head distance "Various between various branches to banks, customer places, dealers, other money changes, directors, residence and transit between branches anywhere in India. On 7.5.2004 when the complainant's area Manager Badrinarayanan was carrying travellers cheques 40 in numbers valid 20,000 US dollars from New Delhi office at South Extension-II to their Gurgaon Branch, the cheques were lost and complaint was lodged and on the basis of the same when the claim was made the opposite party repudiated the claim even though surveyor assessed and recommended the loss for Rs. 8,65,000/- and the original policy was not issued by the opposite party and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed.
3. The opposite party denying the allegations contended that the complainant had forwarded a letter dated 20.06.2003 containing with a list of branch offices and seeking money insurance for the branches covered and the cover stated to be required for a sum of Rs. 20 crores with insured limit for Rs. 5,00,000/- for one incident limit and thereby the intention is not to grant any cover without reference to actual branches of the complainant and the policy covers losses in transit only while money being carried between specified places. But in this case the cheques were lost between the branches at South Extension-II New Delhi and Gurgaon which were not covered under the policy in terms of the permitted offices as per RBI licence on the date of insurance. But the location has been altered and increased and thereby the claim was repudiated.
4. On the basis of both sides materials after an enquiry the District Forum accepting the contentions of the opposite party came to the conclusion that the claim made towards loss between the branches are not covered under the policy and there was no policy terms to cover the risk as per Ex.B1 dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant come forward with this appeal contended that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint and the insurer failed to issue original policy and issued copy with different terms dated 19.3.2004 and erred in not holding the above act would amount to deficiency of service. Further the policy was renewed for the period for 2003-2004 with the same terms for 2002-2003. In view of the expansion of the complainant's operation the appellant was finding it difficult to get the details from the branches and to send consolidated declaration every month as per policy terms and the District Forum comes to erroneous conclusion.
6. We have heard both sides
