IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Contractual terms – In appreciation of contract of insurance, it is an established legal position that the scope for introduction of fresh terms or interpretation terms to introduce new dimensions in a contract already signed by the parties is very limited.
(2) Policy – That the terms and conditions of the Policy are sacrosanct.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 12.04.2010, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (‘State Commission’) in FA No. 349 of 2006, wherein the Appeal filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was allowed and set aside the Order dated 17.05.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul (“District Forum”) in CC No. 41 of 2005 wherein the complaint was dismissed.

2. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to as stated in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. The Complainant, M/s. T. Rajagopala lyengar & Sons, a Partnership Firm represented by its Partner Shri R. Nandakumar, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd. at Kodaikanal. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and 2 others are identified as the OPs Insurer in this matter.

3. In brief, the Complainant renewed their burglary insurance policy with the OPs Insurance Company, which covered the loss of currency notes and coins up to Rs.7,50,000/- under Policy No. 090700/46/ 03/00015, w.e.f. from 03.08.2003 to 02.08.2004. The Complainant kept Rs.3,41,770/-, the proceeds from Petroleum Products sales, in a safety locker in the premises. This was stolen by burglary in the night of 14.09.2003 to early hours on 15.09.2003. He promptly notified the insurer and filed a claim under the policy. However, the claim was rejected by OP-2, citing that the stolen amount was kept in the office of RR Residency (a sister concern of the Complainant), which was not covered under the policy, and allegedly, the theft was perpetrated by the Complainant’s own employee. The Complainant asserted that due to safety concerns regarding their petrol bunk’s aluminum fabrication structure with glass paneling, they opted to store the cash in a safety locker within the same Survey No. as the petrol bunk, which was covered by the insurance policy under No. 296. Despite requesting reconsideration of the claim, the insurer failed to act, constituting a deficiency in service. Thus, he filed CC No. 41/2005 before the District Forum, seeking compensation of Rs.3,41,770/- for cash loss and currency notes, Rs.2 lacs for mental agony, and Rs.10,000/- as costs.

4. In reply, OPs contended that the Complainant had obtained a policy with OP-2 for Rs.7,50,000/- against burglary, effective from 03.08.2003 to 02.08.2004. According to the FIR filed by the petrol bunk manager, the theft appeared to have been committed by the Complainant’s employees. OPs stated that they are not liable to pay unless it is proved that the claim is covered under the terms and conditions of the policy and law. They contended that RR Residency and RR Fast Foods are sister concerns of the Complainant’s petrol bunk, and the theft was committed by RR Fast Food employees, as per police records. Consequently, the OP is not obligated to reimburse the claim. Additionally, based on the police complaint, the theft did not occur within the premises covered by the policy. Thus, loss sustained by the Complainant is not covered. Therefore, the OPs have justified repudiating the Complainant’s claim, and asserted that it does not constitute any deficiency in service. OPs denied the other allegations as false and requested the dismissal of the complaint.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 17.05.2006, dismissed the complaint with the following order:—

“(14) Hence, this Forum comes to conclusion that the alleged burglary theft was not occurred at 296-Seven Road Junction, Kodaikanal and took place only on R.R. Residency which is not covered under the Policy in dispute.....

(15) The claim under policy has been repudiated in terms and conditions of the Policy and was bonafide repudiation and it did not constitute deficiency in service. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(16) In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

6. Aaggrie