NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

THIS revision petition has been filed with a delay of 42 days. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, this delay is hereby condoned.

IT is the case of the complainant Cement Corporation of India (for short CCI'') that, on the intervening night of 11th/12th December, 2002, its cash chest locker was found open in a damaged condition and Rs. 92,350 were stolen from the cash chest. Report of the theft was lodged with the police station under Sections 380 and 457, IPC. In his report he intimated about the theft of cash of Rs. 92,358, damage to cash chest to the tune of Rs. 28,788 and damage to window, grill, glass lock, etc., to the tune of Rs. 2,000. The police could not trace the culprit. Accordingly, a complaint was filed to give directions to the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,23,138, as the Insurance Company did not indemnify the loss. The District Forum after going through the records and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the CCI to the tune of Rs. 92,350 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint on 11.8.2004 till its realization along with Rs. 2,500 as cost.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the National Insurance Company Ltd., filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company has filed this revision petition before us.

THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the awarded amount has been deposited in the State Commission. He has brought to our notice the inquiry report of the CCI wherein it is stated that: "However, from the circumstantial evidence it appears that the chest was not locked properly by concerned officials and may have remained unlocked inadvertently."

HE also drew our attention to the letter addressed by the CCI to the Police Chowki, Rajban wherein it is mentioned that: "It was also observed that the door of cashier room was found broken and one hammer and one iron rod were lying there. The cash chest locker was found in open condition."

THEREFORE he submitted that the cash chest locker were not closed by the CCI officials, hence the loss is not covered by the policy conditions. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the loss, because of the exclusion clause of the policy which reads as follows: "Loss of money where the insured or his employee is involved as principal or accessory, except loss due to fraud or dishonesty of the cash carrying employee of the insured, occurring whilst in transit and discovered within 48 hours."

"Loss occurring on the premises after business hours. Unless the money is in a locked safe or strong room."

WE have gone through the records of the case. There is no dispute that burglary had taken place and intimation of the same has been given to the police station as well as to the Insurance Company without any delay. The only issue raised by the petitioner is that the locker was not locked properly by the concerned officials and may have remained unlocked inadvertently. As against this, there is an evidence on affidavit by Shri M.M. Gupta, Manager of the Insurance Company who on reaching the spot observed that the cash chest locker was found in a damaged condition and it had been opened by the thieves by causing violence to the cash chest. This rebuts the contents of the inquiry report about the inferences drawn by the committee.

SECONDLY , the case has been registered under Section 390, IPC. In the report to the Police Chowki, Rajban, it has been mentioned that there was damage to the chest locker, window, grill, glass lock, etc. It is clear that the door of the cashier room was found broken and one hammer and one iron rod were lying there. The cash chest locker was found in an open condition. These facts are not disputed by the Insurance Company.

ACCORDINGL Y , we do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Fora below warranting our interference. We have no reasons to differ with the detailed concurrent findings recorded by the Fora below. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. The Registrar of the State Commission is directed to release the deposited amount to the CCI after obtaining acknowledgement. R.P. dismissed.