IMPORTANT POINT
Transit clause – The arrangement of steel cupboard with an internal locker or a steel safe as referred to in the warranty clause of Section II indicates positioning and custody at some fixed place and not in transit.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. The complainant is a jeweller running his business in the name of Chetamani Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. at Varanasi. To secure his business the complainant in so far as the present matter is concerned undertook three policies on 01.04.2011. One of the policies is for traditional business - Jewellers Block policy, where the property insured is cash and currency notes and /or other merchandise and materials usual to conduct of the insured’s business belonging to and/ or held in trust or on commission for which the insured is responsible. The Jewellers Block policy contains three sections, the first section is with regard to securing of the property and the premises, the second section is with regard to securing of the property insured whilst in the custody of the category of persons stated therein which includes employees and the third section is with regard to the insurance of the property whilst in transit within India.

3. The second policy is captioned as the Money Insurance which obviously is for cash transactions and the same also covers owners/ Directors as insured in the said policy.

4. The third is a Fidelity guarantee policy that was also referred to by the complainant to the Insurance Company subsequent to the survey report but before its repudiation, wherein four managers and four permanent employees were covered.

5. The background in which the aforesaid claim under the Jewellers Block policy has been made is that the complainant’s brother had travelled to Kolkata from Varanasi along with certain gold jewellery for getting it hallmarked. He also simultaneously purchased some jewellery at Kolkata and left it with the traders there. Then he returned back to Varanasi and according to him he sent Mr. Dina Nath Yadav, his employee to collect the aforesaid hall marked gold jewellery, as well as the jewellery purchased by him from traders in Kolkata, to carry back to Varanasi. This led to the incident which has given rise to the present insurance claim, in as much as, the complainant has alleged that Mr. Dina Nath Yadav while carrying back the jewellery from Kolkata on a train, namely, Chambal Express. He seems to have, as per his version fainted and lost his consciousness on the way to Mugalsarai Station and in all probability the bag containing the jewellery was stolen during his unconsciousness. According to the complainant his brother tried to contact Mr. Deena Nath Yadav on mobile, who did not respond. He became suspicious and then after sometime he came to know that Mr. Deena Nath Yadav has been found in an semi-conscious state and has de-boarded the train at Allahabad junction. It is said that the mobile of Mr. Dina Nath Yadav was responded to by a stall vendor who informed the caller about his status at the railway station. The brother of the complainant, who is one of the directors, immediately rushed for Allahabad and called on his relative to contact Mr. Dina Nath Yadav, who reached and met Mr. Dina Nath Yadav in front of the GRP office. The complainant made an attempt to lodge an FIR but the police did not register it, whereafter they had to take recourse to Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and then the FIR was lodged later on and the case was investigated.

6. On the previous occasion, when the hearing had commenced, learned counsel had been called upon to bring on record the proceedings relating to the criminal case and accordingly, learned counsel for the complainant has brought on record the charge-sheet dated 07.01.2014, which was filed along with IA/3497/2024 dated 29.02.2024. The said charge-sheet after investigation casts suspicion on the role of Mr. Dina Nath Yadav, as according to the investigation, the police did not find the case of any poisoning or of any such attempt having been made as alleged by Mr. Dina Nath Yadav, or his claim of having fainted or become unconscious during the journey. Accordingly, Mr. Dina Na