ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUNIL KUMAR BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Bihar in Appeal No. 31/07 dated 26.10.2010 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal of the complainant, set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner insurance company to pay to the respondent complainant a sum of Rs.7,03,000/ - alongwith 9% interest p.a. from the date on which the cause of action arose till the date of realization besides Rs.5000/ - as litigation cost.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Sushil Kumar Bajaj in his capacity as director of M/s Balajee Electro Steel Ltd. filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum alleging that M/s Balajee Electro Steel Limited had obtained an insurance policy providing insurance cover against loss of money in transit or the loss caused due to robbery, theft or any other tortuitous cause. It is the case of the complainant that during the subsistence of the insurance cover, on 28.04.2003 Sushil Kumar Bajaj collected a sum of Rs.7,03,000/ - from the office of the insured company at 8.00 p.m. He was carrying money in a brief case. On the way, he stopped at Bankipore Club to negotiate a business deal with someone. After parking the car, he handed over the briefcase containing cash to the driver of the car Maksood Alam. After some time, when the complainant came back from the club, he did not find his vehicle in the parking lot. Sunil Kumar Bajaj started searching for the vehicle and he found the vehicle parked near Bihar Chambers at a distance of 500 yards from the Bankipore Club. However, the driver had absconded with the briefcase containing cash. An FIR was lodged at PS Gandhi Maidan on the same day under section 408 IPC. The police could not trace the case. The loss of cash was intimated to the insurance company and the insurance claim was submitted but the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that insurance cover was not available to the petitioner under the policy conditions.

(3.) BEING aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner preferred a consumer complaint.