AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN this complaint, the complainant has claimed payment of a sum of Rs. 3,86,653/- 55 with interest thereon and also a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation from the opposite party. 1. The complainant had obtained "Money in Transit Policy" from the opposite partyINsurance Company for a period of one year commencing from 16.10.1990 to 15.10.1991. The limit of the company of its liability in respect of loss of ''Burglary or House breaking'' was in a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, as per Ex. C-l.
IT is the case of the complainant that its employee on 9.2.1991, Saturday, while the policy was in force, carried a sum of Rs 3,50,000/- from the office premises to the Bank of Saurashtra, Mission Road, Bangalore, to make the deposit in the said Bank, but by the time he reached the Bank premises, the Bank was closed and so the Accountant of the complainant-firm got back the said money to the office premises, kept a sum of Rs. 3,86,653-55 inclusive of a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the cash box, put the said cash box in the cash cabin, locked it and went away. The next day, that is 10.2.1991, was Sunday, so he came to the office only on 11.2.1991, Monday. When he opened the front door, found the false ceiling (roof) over the cash cabin broken-up and the cash box missing. He also found the terrace door broken open. The complainant immediately thereafter made a report of the occurrence to the Police, as per Ex. C-2 and also reported the same to the O.P.-Insurance Co., as per Ex. C-4. The police on the receipt of the said report, as per Ex. C-1, reached the place of occurrence and recorded a mahazar, as per Ex. C-3.
The complainant further averred, on 11.2.1991 when the information of the occurrence was reported to the Police and the Insurance Co., as per Ex.C-1 and C-4, the actual cash missing, that was kept in the cash box, was not informed. It was informed only on 13.2.1991, as per Ex.C-5, as the cash box itself was missing and the actual amount kept in the said cash box was not known on that day.
THE opposite party-Insurance Co. deputed the Surveyor, whochecked the office premises, secured relevant papers from the complainant, such as copy of the F.I.R., copy of the Mahazar, copy of the cash book etc. But the Insurance Co. that is, the opposite party, subsequently, by its letter dated 31.3.1992, repudiated the claim on some untenable grounds even though it had informed the complainant that it would process the papers as early as possible and settle the claim. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought the payment of the said sum of Rs. 3,86,653-55 alleged (o have been kept him in the cash box which was found missing on 11.2.1991 from the cash cabin of the office premises.
THE opposite party filed its version and admitted the fact of the complainant obtaining a "money in transit policy" as per Ex. C-1. It also admitted the fact of the receipt of the message of housebreaking and burglary as averred by the complainant on 11.2.1991, as per Ex. C-4. The opposite party further averred that the Survey of the office premises showed that the complainant had acted in violation of condition No. 3 of the Policy, Ex. C-1, and therefore, he was not entitled for any relief, in that view the claim of the complainant was repudiated. The opposite party, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry, the complainant examined its Accountant as C.W-1 and got Ex. C-1 to C-10 marked in evidence. The opposite party examined its Assistant Administrative Officer, as R.W.-l and got survey report marked as Ex. D-4.
WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. WE have also perused the material placed on record.
IT is not disputed that the complainant had obtained a " money in transit policy" as per Ex. C-1 from the opposite party-Insurance Co. IT was for a period of the year commencing from 16.10.1990 to 15.10.1991. The limit of company''s liability in respect of any loss arising out of any one event was sum of Rs.10 lakhs. It is also not disputed that the complainant on 11.2.1991 made a report of the occurrence as per Ex. C-4 to the opposite partyInsurance Co. The contents of the said letter, read as under: "On 11th February, 91, when we opened our showroom at 9.00 a.m. we found that the terrace door had been broken open and burglars have entered our showroom. They have entered the cash cabin by opening the false roofing. The cash box itself is missing. The actuals of loss will be intimated to you through our accounts book. Kindly register a claim of loss and issue us the necessary forms to proceed in this matter."
It is clear from this letter that the actual money that was kept in the cash box which was found missing is not mentioned.
C.W.-1, the Accountant, Mr. Puttaswamy, has stated that it was he who kept a sum of Rs. 3,86,000/- in the cash-box, put the cash box in cash cabin on 9.2.1991, locked it and went home. C.W.-1 has further stated that by about 9.00 a.m. on Monday morning, that is, on 11.2.1991, it was he who opened the front door of the office, found the false ceiling over the cash cabin opened and the cash box missing. He also found that the terrace door was brokenopen. Immediately thereafter a complaint, as per Ex. C-2 and a report to the Insurance Co. as per Ex. C-4 were made. The material part of evidence of C.W-1, in this regard, reads as under: "....By about 2.00 p.m. that: day I kept Rs. 3,86,000/- inclusive of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the cash box, put the cash box in the cash cabin and locked and went home. Sunday being the holiday, I came to the office by about 9.00 a.m. on Monday morning. I opened the front door of office. I found the false ceiling over the cash cabin opened and the cash box missing. We found the terrace door broken. Immediately, thereafter, the Manager of complainant''s firm Mr. Basavanna made a complaint of the occurrence to the Police at Cubbon Park Police Station. Ex. C-2 is the xerox copy of the FIR of the said complaint. Thereafter, police came to the premises and recorded the mahazar. Ex. C-3 is the xerox copy of the said mahazar. We also informed the occurrence to the opposite party company as per Ex. C-4. We informed the police the actual amount missing on 13.2.1991 as per Ex. C-5. We did not inform the police about the actual amount missing on the first day of our making complaint to the police as the cash box itself was missing."
It was C.W-1 who had, as per his statement, kept a sum of Rs. 3,86,000/- in the cash box on 9-2-1991 and had put the same in the cash cabin and locked it. It was C.W-1, who had by about 9.00 a.m. on 11-2-1991 came to the office, opened the lock and found false ceiling over the cash cabin opened and cash box itself missing. Immediately thereafter a complaint, as per Ex. C-2 to the Police and information, as per Ex. C-4, to the opposite party-company came to be made. But the actual cash kept in the cash box and missing was not referred to either in the complaint to the police, Ex. C-l or to the opposite party-company, as per Ex. C-4. It is very difficult to consider if the C.W-1 were to be the person who had kept the money in the cash box has to talk this fact of the actual cash kept in the cash box and missing, was not referred to in the complaint, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4.
IT is the case of the opposite party-Insurance Co. that the complainant acted in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, Ex. C-l and so the complainant was not entitled for the claim made by it. The term "B" of the policy in Ex.C-1, reads as under: "(b) BURGLARY AND/- or HOUSEBREAKING whilst such money after arrival at the insured premises stated herein is retained for a period not exceeding Fortyeight (48) hours from the time of arrival provided such money is secured, in burglar resisting safe or strong room installed in the insured premises."
It is clear from this term that the complainant, if he were to keep the money in the premises, it is necessary for the complainant to secure it in burglar resisting safe or a strong room installed in the insured premises.
IT is not the case of the complainant that he had kept the said money either in burglar resisting safe or in a strong room.
C.W-1, in this regard, has stated that he had kept the cash in the cash box, had put the cash box in the cash cabin and locked it. C.W-1 has further stated that the cash box was of easily movable size. Therefore, it becomes admitted fact of the complainant that he had not secured the cash in burglar resisting safe or in a strong room.. Condition No. 3 of Ex.C-1-policy, reads as under: "3". Reasonable Care: The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against any accidentloss or damage. A complete list of the amount of the money in the safe shall be kept secure in some place other than the said safe and the liability of the company shall be limited to the amount actually shown by such record to be in the safe at the time of loss or damage but not exceeding in any case the limit of the Company''s liability in respect of any one loss."
It shows that the insured has to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against any accidents, loss or damages. He has to prepare a complete list of the account of the money in the safe kept secured in some place other than the said safe and the liability of the Company shall be limited to the amount actually shown by such record put in the safe at the time of loss or damage.
IN the present case, C.W-1, has stated thus: "The amount kept in the cash box finds an entry in the cash book. The denominations of the notes in the cash box are not noted in any register. But they were entered in a slip and that slip was in cash box. The denominations slip that I refer is the same challan that I had carried to the Bank."
This evidence would go to show that the complainant had not acted in compliance with Condition No. 3 of the policy, Ex. C-1, referred above. He had not kept the list of the amount of the money in the safe secured in some place other than the said cash box. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has clearly acted in violation of this Condition No. 3 as well.
THE complainant has, in his letter Ex.C8, admitted that there was an iron-safe in the office premises, but no cash was kept in the said iron safe. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complainant has acted in violation of Condition No.3 and term (b) of Insurance Policy, Ex. C-1 and so he was not entitled for the claim, made by him. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. THE parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.