UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which was the apposite party before the District Forum, has filed this Revision Petition against the order passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 255/2006 dated 6.5.2006 whereby and where under the State Commission has reversed the order passed by the District Forum and directed the Petitioner to indemnify the Respondent/complainant in the sum of Rs. 3,10,000, which was stolen while the Respondent was travelling from Ratlam to Sant Road.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the Respondent was a railway contractor and used to carry money to Ratlam, Meghnagar, Dahod, Sant Road and Godhara to look after his work and make payments to the labourers. He took a transit insurance policy in the sum of Rs. 20 lacs for the period from 9.4.2001 to 8.4.2002. On 20.8.2001, Respondent withdrew a sum of Rs. 3,10,000 from State Bank of India, main branch Ratlam for payment of salary to the labourers and kept the same in a rexine bag safely and started his journey from Ratlam to Sant Road in Dehradun Express. As per averments made in the complaint, he lay down on the upper berth and kept the bag under his head. On reaching Bamniyan, he came down from his berth and sat down on the seat below. At Megh Nagar station, on lifting the bag, he found that the weight of the bag was less and on inspection found that the bag had been cut from the side and money stolen. As train had started, the Respondent reported the theft at Dahod Railway Police Station where he was told to report about the incident at Godhara Police Station. Godhara Police Station told him that the area where theft took place falls under the Indore police. But, at Indore he was asked to report the incident to GRP Police Station, Ratlam. Then, the Respondent reported the matter to GRP Police Station, Ratlam. After investigation, the GRP Police Station, Ratlam closed the case file. Respondent lodged the claim with the Petitioner, which was repudiated on the ground that the theft reported by him was of suspicious nature. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) District Forum, on appreciation of pleadings as well as evidence, dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.