MAHENDER GOEL Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 02.06.2010 passed by State Commission in complaint No. 83/2002 'Mahender Goel v. Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. by which complaint was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant - appellant Mahender Goel, proprietor of the firm M.R. Jewellers, engaged in export of jewellery, had taken a cash in transit policy effective from 02.08.2000 to 01.08.2001, to cover any single cash in transit upto Rs. 10 lacs effective from 02.08.2000 to 01.08.2001 from the OP - respondent. On 08.12.2000 at 11:30 O' Clock when the complainant carrying cash of Rs. 9,85,000/ -, was proceeding in his esteem car keeping the cash in his bag on the rear seat of the car, reached nearby the Jassa Ram Hospital, Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, two young boys on a motorcycle indicated the complainant that the rear left side tyre of his car is punctured in consequence whereof he stopped the car on one side of the road and got down to find out as to what was wrong with the tyre. The complainant saw that the left rear tyre had considerably less air, he, therefore took out a stepany from the dickey of the car, closed the dickey and changed the rear left side tyre within 10 to 12 minutes. The complainant when entered the car, found the rear right door of the car slightly open and the cash bag missing. He was flabbergasted as to how the bag was taken away, because he was vigilant while changing the tyre, and had seen none nearby the car. He suspected the two boys who had given him the indication, and had tried to stop his car might have taken away his bag to whom he searched, but in vain. The complainant soon after at 12 O' Clock in the noon filed the First Information Report of the incident of theft at Karol Bagh, Police Station New Delhi, and intimated the OP insurance company about the theft of his cash bag containing Rs. 9,85,000/ - from the rear seat of his car. The OP company appointed Shri S.P. Goel & Co. as the surveyor which required various details for a number of times from the complainant for giving report which the complainant furnished but the surveyor kept on demanding the details for no reason, despite repeated protest letters by the complainant. The complainant even met the authorities of the OP company in this regard and lodged protest with a request to settle the claim, but in vain. Alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. Opposite party resisted the complaint and submitted that the complainant had filed a complaint in a hot haste without waiting for a decision on his claim by the OP company. The OP alleged that the company had repudiated his claim subsequently on the ground of breach of policy's terms and conditions as his conduct was not inconformity as provided in condition No. 3 & 6 of the insurance policy at the time of alleged incident and complainant had failed to take reasonable steps and care to ensure safety of the cash being carried in transit, and had not locked the main lock of driver side door and the locks of the other doors as well, while changing the tyre and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned State Commission, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the complaint against which this appeal has been filed alongwith application of condonation of delay.

(3.) AS there is delay of only 29 days in filing the appeal, I deem it appropriate to condone delay for the reasons mentioned in the application and delay stands condoned.