IMPORTANT POINT
Exclusion Clause – Complainant/Respondent is at no fault and the contention of the Appellant that the Complainant/Respondent left the money unattended which falls under the Exclusion Clause hold no water.

JUDGMENT

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President—The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:—

“The complainant had obtained a policy of money insurance from the 2 to cover movement of cash from various places to and from his office. The insurance policy covered inter-alia the risk of loss or damage to money in transit from office to directors home and directors home to office/bank.

The policy was operative within radius of 30 Kms from office and was valid for the period 5.9.2009 to 4.9.2010. it is alleged that on 3.7.2010, Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, the director of the complainant company was travelling in a car from his house to the office at K.G. Marg. The car was being driven by a river. He was carrying a sum of Rs. 561,500/- to the office for safe aeping. On the way he stopped briefly at Janpath to have his glasses attended to by an optician. The money was in the car which was being manned by the driver. Some miscreants /trickster came near the car and told the driver that some money was lying outside/under the car. the driver got down and started collecting money, the miscreants opened the dicky door and ran away with the bags containing money and cher documents. The police was informed immediately who came to the pot and conducted investigator after FIR had been lodged. However, the police could not trace out filed an untraced report.

The complainant had also reported the matter to the OP who had appointed M/s H. R.C. Associates, surveyor and loss assessor to assess the 1oss.

The surveyor had conducted a detailed enquiry and had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs561500/-. He had recommended ayrent of the claim as it fell within the scope of the policy.

However, the OP did not act or the report of the surveyor and appointed another surveyor namely M/s ABM consultants. The second surveyor recommended rejection of the claim on flimsy grounds. This led the complainant to approach this forum for redressal of its grievances.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 28.04.2015, whereby it held as under:

“The facts are not much in dispute. The complainant company had purchased a policy of money insurance from the OP which was valid for the period 5.9.2009 to 4.09.2010. During the subsistence of the said policy, the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.5,61,500/- while in transit. The OP had appointed a surveyor to assess the loss • M/s HRC associates had filed a report and recommended the payment of the aforesaid amount. The OP had, however, refused to act on the report of M/s HRC associates and had appointed M/s ABM engineers and consultants as investigators and on the basis of the report of the said investigator had repudiated the claim lodged by the complainant.

The sole question for our consideration is, therefore, as to whether OP was justified in repudiating the claim or not on the plea that there was a violation of the conditions of the policy and that the complainant had failed to take reasonable care of the insured goods. Before we come to the merits of the case before us let us consider the following judgments:

In the case of M/s Annam Traders V/s M/s New India Insurance Company FA no. 1441/2007 (AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) it was held as under:—

10. Coming to the facts, the sale executive who had collected the amount after the goods were delivered went to hotel kept the bag on the dining table went to a distance of four feet to handwash, however, on his return he found that the bag was lost. When the bag was kept within a short range, where he could keep a watch for any eventuality or for untoward incident to happen, and in the meantime if theft was committed he could not be found fault.

Obviously thefts are committed without the persons being unaware of. Had it not been no theft could be committed. The very fact that the police later received the bag wherein the cash was kept would itself pro