RIDHI GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order dated 13.6.2005 is an ex parte order whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking indemnification of the loss of cash of Rs. 40,000 against Shopkeepers Policy was dismissed on the premise that the loss was not as per terms of the policy that the cash should be in hand whereas the cash that was lost was in the car. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant obtained a Shopkeepers Policy from the respondent. The policy was effective from 17.6.2000 to 16.6.2001. The policy covered money transit risk upto Rs. 50,000. Unfortunately the appellant suffered a cash loss of Rs. 40,000 while in transit. The Manager of the appellant was going to bank to deposit Rs. 40,000 but on way he stopped at a place to collect some more money. While he was away from the vehicle for about 5 minutes, somebody stole the cash from the car. Police report was lodged vide FIR No. 73/01. The appellant lodged the claim for the loss to the respondent but it repudiated the claim on the interpretation of wrong clauses. The appellant prayed for directions to respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000 with interest, cost and compensation.

(3.) The repudiation vide letter dated 27.5.2001 shows that the loss was not covered under the Clauses a, b, c of Sec. III of the Money Insurance under Shopkeeper Policy. The repudiation letter reads as under: DOXV/NKM/2003 27th May, 2003