NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO Vs. TANDON EMPORIUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the decision of District Forum, Kanpur in Complaint Case Number 325 of 1989-90 has been challenged by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. which has been directed to pay to the complainant a sum of rupees nine thousand with interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum with effect from 8 September, 1987. The decision is dated 25 September, 1992.

(2.) The complainant obtained a shopkeeper's Insurance Policy from the Assurance Company which was valid for the period between 15 January, 1987 and 14 January, 1988. It covered loss o money as well thus: "section III - Money Insurance. The company will indemnify the insured in respect of (a) loss by accident or misfortune whilst the insured's money is in his hands, or in the hands of his employees in transit between any two places within a radius of fifteen miles from the insured's premises. (b) (c)

(3.) The case of the complainant, which has been awarded by the District Forum after due appraisal of the documentary and oral evidence on record, is that on 8 September, 1987 a partner of the complainant-Firm was on his way to the Indian Overseas Bank in his car from his shop with a sum of rupees nine thousand in cash for depositing it in the Bank when he suddenly remembered that there was a case fixed in the District Court that day which was to be attended to. He went to the Court premises, before going to the Bank, and parked his car near the other parked cars opposite the police office. He went to the Court, leaving the cash amount in the car as he did not consider it safe to carry the amount to the Court house. The money was concealed by him by placing it under the format in front of the driving seat. After waiting for the case to be called out till the lunch time when he came out he found the car missing. He was very upset and after getting the case adjourned went to Police Station, Kotwali and lodged a report about the theft of the car. In the confusion and tension, after the theft of the car he forget to mention about the loss of money in the car. When he went back, after lodging the report, he was reminded by his son about the money. He immediately went back to the Police Station and lodged a second report about the loss of the money because the Police Station Incharge refused to incorporate it in the first report. The second report was made in writing within twenty minutes of the first report.