TAIYAB BHAI MULLA HAIDER Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complainant's appeal against order dated 21.8.1997 passed in Case No.333/1995 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore (for short the 'district Forum' ).

(2.) The appellant carries on business of Steel Furniture in the name and style of Taiyab Bhai Mulla Haider Bhai Maheedpurwala in the premises at 72, Siyaganj, Indore. The premises had three floors, the ground floor and the first floor are used as showroom for display and keeping stocks while the second floor is used as godown. The business hours are from 10 a. m. to 8 p. m. while Sunday is observed as weekly holiday. The appellant obtained a policy No.151106/406/00976/46/95/00136 for cash/money insurance covering the risk for the period 4.10.1994 to 3.10.1995 of shop to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- and of cash to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. In the intervening night of 18.10.1994 and 19.10.1994 an amount of Rs.24,570/- kept in the upper drawer of the table which had locks, was stolen when the premises and lock of the drawer were securely locked. A tape worth Rs.1,000/- was also stolen. In the morning when the appellant came to know of theft on opening of the business premises at 10 a. m. the lock was found open and the cash missing from the drawer of the table. A police report was lodged at 12.30 p. m. at Police Station Central Kotwali, Indore on that a case was registered under Sec.457 and 380, I. P. C. at crime No.2/94. A claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. The police made investigation but neither the miscreants could be arrested nor the cash and tape was recovered. The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor Suresh Kumar Kimtee who vide report dated 6.3.1995 concluded that there was no forcible entry into the premises. The miscreants might have climbed the second floor and came to the ground floor through staircase and had opened the table drawer with the help of master key where cash alleged to have been kept on 18.10.1994 on closure of the business premises. There were no marks of use of force or damage to the cash drawer. The Surveyor found that policy covers the risk of locked safe or locked strong room while reported loss took place from the drawer of the table which cannot be admitted as the reported loss is beyond the risk covered. The Insurance Company after considering the report of the Surveyor and due application of mind vide letter dated 23.3.1995 repudiated the claim as 'no Claim' since the policy covered the risk from 'locked Safe' or 'locked Strong Room' while the reported loss was from the drawer of the table which was not damaged, hence, reported loss was beyond the scope of cash insurance policy. The appellant sent letter dated 30.3.1995 stating therein that repudiation of the claim was unjustified as the cash was kept in the table drawer which was locked, which is stronger than the normal iron safe which may be verified. It was specifically designed and manufactured system for the purposes of safe deposit of the cash. The Insurance Company vide letter dated 16.5.1995 shown its inability to take a different view.

(3.) The appellant filed a complaint which was resisted. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence on record and the terms and conditions of the policy held that the repudiation of the claim was on justifiable grounds as per survey report, lock of table drawer was opened by master key, the appellant did not take proper steps to keep the cash after business hours in the safe or strong room. The appellant also failed to establish that amount of cash was kept by producing the record of account or sales and of receipt of the amount on the day and at the time of closing of the business hours.