PIPING AND ENERGY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against order dated 22.2.2003 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1338/1998 - entitled M/s. Piping and Energy Products Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the appellant being a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act had obtained Money Insurance Policy from the respondent bearing No. 48/56/1997 for the period from midnight 25.4.1997 to midnight 24.4.1998, on payment of requisite premium. However, during the night of 6/7 August, 1997 between 6.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. there was a theft/burglary at the premises of the appellant at Z-18, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi and sum of Rs. 6,210/- was removed from the drawer of the table and a further sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was stolen from the safe of the Almirah after cutting and opening the metal sheet of the back of the almirah. THE appellant lodged an FIR with respect to the said theft/burglary with the concerned Police Station and also intimated to the respondent. THE appellant also lodged its claim in respect of the said theft/burglary, for the amount of Rs. 1,86,210/- on the prescribed form together with relevant documents on 21.8.1997. However, vide letter dated 18.3.1998, the respondent sanctioned a claim of Rs. 30,000/- only in favour of the appellant as against the liability of the respondent upto Rs. 1,50,000/- in terms of the policy. THE appellant on receipt of the said letter got a legal notice dated 6.4.1998 served on the respondent but since the same elicited no response, the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the respondent to pay full claim amounting to Rs. 1,86,210/- together with damages. The complaint, filed by the appellant was resisted by the respondent. The main defence of the respondent in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that in terms of Section 1 of the policy in question, any amount kept for more than 48 hours by the appellant was not payable under the terms of the policy and as such only an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was sanctioned for payment to the appellant, on account of the fact that the said amount had been lying with the appellant for less than 48 hours. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent the complaint filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order on the basis of documents/material on record dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. It has been held vide impugned order that the claim of the appellant was not covered under the Policy as Clause C Section 1 of the policy stipulated that any loss of money retained by the appellant for more than 48 hours was not covered under the policy whereas the appellant had been keeping the amount in question for more than a week. Before the District Forum, it had been pleaded on behalf of the appellant that Clause A of Section 1 of the said clause was applicable and not Clause C. Whereas before us the sole contention of the appellant is that claim of the appellant is covered under Section 2 of the policy and not under Section 1 as had been erroneously held by the learned District Forum. So far as the said contention of the appellant is concerned, we have called for a copy of the Insurance Policy and on a perusal of Sections 1 and 2 of the said document, it is apparent that Section 2 has to be read in conjunction with Section 1 as has been specifically stated in Section 2 which reads as under : Estimated total amount of money in transit per annum Rs. 50,00,000/- - Section II Cash other than described in Section 1(A) above whilst on the premises during business hours or whilst secured in locked safe or locked strongroom on the insured''s premises out of business hours against the risk of burglary, housebreaking, housebreaking and hold-up.

THUS it is apparent on a bare perusal of the above clause that it relates to cash other than that described in Section 1(A) above and as such would be applicable to the cash covered under Section 1(C) whereby if the appellant had retained cash for more than 48 hours, the loss of same was not covered under the Policy. No other point was raised and as such we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for any interference in the same in the exercise of our appellate powers. Accordingly, the present appeal, filed by the appellant being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. A copy of this order, as per the statutory reuirements, be forwarded to the parties, free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the Record Room. Appeal dismissed.