RATHI BROTHERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by M/s. Rathi Brothers (here in after referred to as the 'Petitioners') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent'). In their complaint before the District Forum, Petitioners had stated that they were conducting their business as general merchant and agent with respect to a number of commodities and to safeguard their money, they had taken Burglary and House Breaking. Policy for the period from 9.10.1992 to 8.10.1993 from the Respondent/Insurance Company, inter alia, to cover burglary at the place of their business amounting to Rs. 2,30,000 which was kept in the Godrej Safe and cash amounting to Rs. 20,000 which was kept in a steel box. On 19.1.1993 during the subsistence of the said insurance policy, a burglary took place in the Petitioners' business premises and the burglars took away Rs. 1,55,000 from the safe and Rs. 21,500 from the steel box and in the process also inflicted serious injury to one of the partners of the Petitioners who tried to resist the burglars. Immediately after this incident, a complaint was lodged with Police Station, Silliguri and the Respondent/Insurance Company was also informed of the incident. Respondent on the same day appointed a Surveyor to look into the incident and conduct an on-the-spot inspection. On 2.2.1993, Petitioners preferred a claim in the prescribed form for a sum of Rs. 1,76,500 in total which was lost by them as a result of the burglary from the safe as well as the steel box. On receipt of the claim, Respondent/Insurance Company appointed another Surveyor to whom all the documents were supplied by the Petitioners. However, despite requests on several occasions, Respondent/Insurance Company did not settle the entire claim and instead sent a voucher for Rs. 20,000 in respect of the cash burgled from the steel box i.e. upto the limit of the risk cover by the said policy but repudiated the claim of the Petitioners with respect to the money burgled from the safe amounting to Rs. 1,55,000 on the plea that the amount had not been taken from the safe and, therefore, this amount was not covered as per the provisions of the insurance policy taken. Being aggrieved, Petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Respondent/Insurance Company be directed to pay Rs. 1,76,500 which was lost as a result of the burglary from the steel box and safe of the Petitioners with interest @ 18% per annum from 19.1.1993, Rs. 50,000 for deficiency in service and loss suffered and Rs. 50,000 for loss of reputation and other costs.

(2.) The above contentions were refuted by the Respondents who stated that as per the provisions of the insurance proposal form and the policy agreement money retained in a place other than the iron safes/steel box was not covered under the insurance policy and that in the instant case the two Surveyors appointed by the Respondent/Insurance Company after a detailed inquiry had found that only Rs. 20,000 have been burgled from the steel box and the rest of the money burgled was lying in a room and thus outside the safe. Under the circumstances, Respondent/Insurance Company had rightly repudiated the claim.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint by observing that since the Petitioners were counting the cash before putting it inside the iron safe in the same room where the safe was installed, a liberal interpretation needs to be taken since it is natural that one counts the money before putting it into the safe which is what the Petitioners were doing and, therefore, the claim in respect of the entire loss deserves to be indemnified. By refusing to do so, Respondent/Insurance Company is guilty for deficiency in service. The District Forum, therefore, directed the Respondent/Insurance Company to pay the Petitioners, Rs. 1,76,500 together with interest @ 18% per annum from 19.1.2003 and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000 within 60 days from the date of the order.