CHUNDURI SRI HARI RAO vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

THIS is a complaint filed under Section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards settlement of the insurance claim with interest @ 24% per annum, to pay damages of Rs. 20,000/- per year from the date of the incident till the date of payment with interest @ 24% per annum and costs.

THE material averments in the complaint are briefly as follows : THE complainant is the Managing Partner of a registered firm by name M/s. Sri Vasavi Cashews Manufacturing Company at Vetapalem in Prakasam District and the complainant used to go to some places for purchases and collections now and then by train and he used to carry heavy amounts with him for that purpose. At the instance of the first opposite party''s agent the complainant obtained Cash in Transit insurance policy bearing No. 725940037 dated 31.12.1987 for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the first opposite party i.e., Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Chirala with a single cash carrying limit of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the period from 17.12.1987 to 16.12.1988 and paid a cash premium of Rs. 1,050/-. THE complainant was in the habit of carrying cash for the purchase of cashews in Tuni town and Rajahmundry town etc., and he used to make an entry in his account books in regard to the amount he used to carry with him for the purchase of cashews. As he wanted to purchase cashews at Tuni and Rajahmundry the complainant took an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- after making due entries in the account books on 11.7.1988 and proceeded to Tuni for purchase of cashew nuts and boarded Express Train No. 53 on that day and at a place between Vadlamudi and Krishna Canal Junction his bag containing the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a demand draft bearing No. 1963 for Rs. 26,980/- dated 9.7.1988 drawn in favour of M/s. Kusumanchi Rameswara Rao and Company, Tuni and also Andhra Bank credit card was lost in the train. After reaching Vijayawada he got down and gave a complaint to the Vijayawada Railway Station about the loss of his bag. He also informed the first opposite party on the same day about the said incident. He also got it published in a local daily news paper ''Janata''. THE Regional Manager of the New India Assurance Company, i.e., third opposite party appointed Surveyors to investigate his claim and the Surveyors after making a thorough investigation assured the complainant that he would get the full claim amount from the Insurance Company. But the Regional Manager of the New India Assurance Company i.e., third opposite party sent a letter dated 21.2.1990 raising all false and untenable contentions. THE opposite parties, ultimately repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that it was not a genuine claim. THE complainant suffered heavy loss on account of the failure of the opposite parties in settling his claim. He suffered loss of Rs. 20,000/- per year upto 1991. Hence the complaint. On behalf of the opposite parties one Mr. V. Venkataraman Deputy Manager in the office of the Regional Manager of the New India Assurance Company Limited at Secunderabad filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that the fourth opposite party being the General Manager of the New India Assurance Company at Bombay is not a necessary party, that the complainant has not stated the correct facts of the case, that after the complainant put in his claim in this regard a Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company and the Surveyor investigated the claim of the complainant and submitted his report stating that the claim of the complainant is not genuine for the reasons mentioned therein, that there is discrepancy with regard to the manner in which the incident had occurred as stated in the report given by the complainant to the police and in the claim made by him to the opposite parties, inasmuch as the complainant stated in the claim made to the opposite parties that his bag containing cash and other articles were snatched away whereas in his report to the police he stated that his tip top bag which was kept on the upper berth was found missing; that the explanation given by the complainant for making journey in a general compartment was not satisfactory, that there was no acceptable evidence to show that the complainant was carrying a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- and there was need to carry such cash for purchase of cashew nuts either at Tuni or at Rajahmundry and that finally the investigation made by the Surveyor appointed by the opposite parties disclosed that the claim of the complainant was not genuine and hence the repudiation made by the opposite parties is justified and that because the matter requires elaborate evidence it has to be referred to the Civil Court. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

At the time of enquiry the complainant has filed his affidavit and relied upon the xerox copies of the documents filed alongwith the complaint. On behalf of the opposite parties one K. Krishna, Administrative Officer in the Regional Office of the New India Assurance Company Limited, Secunderabad has filed his affidavit dated 6.4.1999 on 7.4.1999 reiterating the stand taken by the opposite parties in their counter affidavit. Some documents were also filed on behalf of the opposite parties. In his affidavit the complainant reiterated his allegations made in the complaint. The documents filed alongwith the complaint are xerox copy of the insurance policy, copy of the abstract of the day book from 1.7.1988 to 13.7.1988, copy of the report given by him to the Railway Police, Vijayawada, copy of the letter of intimation to the opposite parties about the insurance, copy of paper publication about the incident, copy of letter dated 5.8.1998 sent by the first opposite party stating that the opposite party was sending claim form to the complainant, copy of his letter dated 26.8.1988 to the first opposite party stating that he was sending his claim forms in duplicate duly completing the same, copy of the letter dated 20.9.1988 sent by the first opposite party asking the complainant to send a copy of the police report and also a copy of the departmental enquiry conducted by him if any, copy of the letter dated 22.10.1988 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party stating that he was sending a copy of the police report and that he was awaiting information from the Vijayawada Railway Police Station, copy of the letter dated 4.5.1989 issued to the first opposite party requesting it to settle his claim, copy of the letter dated 19.5.1989 from the Assistant Manager (Grievance Cell), copy of the letter dated 14.8.1989 issued to the first opposite party for settlement of the claim at an early date, copy of the letter dated 22.8.1989 issued by the Divisional Manager of the opposite party stating that his claim folder was sent to the Regional Office for scrutiny, copy of letter dated 30.10.1989 issued by the Director of Vardhaman Insurance Services Private Limited, asking him to send some documents, copy of the letter dated 21.2.1990 issued by the Divisional Manager of the opposite party repudiating the claim of the complainant and office copy of registered notice issued to the opposite parties, acknowledgements and reply of the opposite parties.

THE opposite parties filed a copy of the report of the Surveyor i.e., Satyam Investigation Services stating that for the reasons mentioned therein the Surveyor came to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant was not genuine and copy of the conditions of the insurance policy issued to the complainant. We have gone through the entire material on record. The case of the complainant is that while he was travelling in Express Train No. 53 to Tuni Railway Station with a bag containing a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 26,980/- in favour of M/s. Kusumanchi Rameswara Rao and Company, Tuni and one Andhra Bank credit card and some clothes on 11.7.1988 and when the train was about to reach Vijayawada Railway Station his bag was lost and it was not traced inspite of complaint given to the Railway Police at Vijayawada and that because he obtained Cash Transit Insurance Policy from the opposite party Insurance Company they are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 /- with interest @ 24% per annum from 11.7.1988 and damages of Rs. 20,000/- per year with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the incident till the date of payment and costs. The opposite parties do not dispute that a carry transit insurance policy was issued to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- with a single carrying limit of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the policy was in force by the date of the incident. The contention of the opposite parties is that the Surveyor appointed by them investigated into the matter and came to the conclusion that the claim made by the complainant is not genuine. We have gone through the report of Surveyor filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Several reasons were mentioned in the Surveyor report for coming to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant was not genuine. The Surveyor stated in his report that there was no acceptable evidence to show that the complainant was carrying a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- at the time of the incident. The very fact that the complainant chose to travel in a general compartment packed with passengers with a heavy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- suggests falsity of his claim that the fact that the complainant mentioned in the claim form that his bag was snatched away from his hands when he was carrying it whereas the fact that he mentioned in the report to the police that his bag which was kept on the upper berth of the compartment was found missing suggests that there is no truth in the claim of the complainant, that nobody came forward to speak about the incident or about the fact that the complainant started at his place with a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- and that therefore the claim of the complainant is not justified and there was no truth in his claim.

IT may be seen that except the proof affidavit of the complainant no other material was placed by the complainant to prove that he was carrying a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- at the time of the incident and that his bag containing cash and other articles was snatched away from his hands when he was travelling in the train. Merely because the complainant produced his account book showing that he made a debit entry of Rs. 1,50,000/- in his day book it cannot be concluded that the complainant was carrying a cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- with him while travelling in a train in general compartment. The complainant''s explanation that he could not get accommodation in reserved compartment and therefore he was forced to travel in a general compartment cannot be accepted as it is quite unlikely that a person carrying heavy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- would choose to travel in a general compartment knowing fully well that the general compartment is packed with passengers. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have applied their mind and have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and that the repudiation made by the opposite parties is not arbitrary and capricious, and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case. This order will not preclude the complainant from approaching a Civil Court for appropriate reliefs, if he so desires. Complaint dismissed.