RATHI BROTHERS vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed by M/s Rathi Brothers (hereinafter referred to as the ''Petitioners '') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the ''State Commission '') in favour of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ''Respondent '').

IN their complaint before the District Forum, Petitioners had stated that they were conducting their business as general merchant and agent with respect to a number of commodities and to safeguard their money, they had taken Burglary and House Breaking Policy for the period from 09.10.1992 to 08.10.1993 from the Respondent/Insurance Company, inter alia, to cover burglary at the place of their business amounting to Rs.2,30,000/- which was kept in the Godrej Safe and cash amounting to Rs.20,000/- which was kept in a steel box. On 19.01.1993 during the subsistence of the said insurance policy, a burglary took place in the Petitioners '' business premises and the burglars took away Rs.1,55,000/- from the safe and Rs.21,500/- from the steel box and in the process also inflicted serious injury to one of the partners of the Petitioners who tried to resist the burglars. Immediately after this incident, a complaint was lodged with Police Station, Silliguri and the Respondent/Insurance Company was also informed of the incident. Respondent on the same day appointed a Surveyor to look into the incident and conduct an on-the-spot inspection. On 02.02.1993, Petitioners preferred a claim in the prescribed form for a sum of Rs.1,76,500/- in total which was lost by them as a result of the burglary from the safe as well as the steel box. On receipt of the claim, Respondent/Insurance Company appointed another Surveyor to whom all the documents were supplied by the Petitioners. However, despite requests on several occasions, Respondent/Insurance Company did not settle the entire claim and instead sent a voucher for Rs.20,000/- in respect of the cash burgled from the steel box i.e. upto the limit of the risk cover by the said policy but repudiated the claim of the Petitioners with respect to the money burgled from the safe amounting to Rs.1,55,000/- on the plea that the amount had not been taken from the safe and, therefore, this amount was not covered as per the provisions of the insurance policy taken. Being aggrieved, Petitioners filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Respondent/Insurance Company be directed to pay Rs.1,76,500/- which was lost as a result of the burglary from the steel box and safe of the Petitioners with interest @ 18% per annum from 19.01.1993, Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and loss suffered and Rs.50,000/- for loss of reputation and other costs. The above contentions were refuted by the Respondents who stated that as per the provisions of the insurance proposal form and the policy agreement, money retained in a place other than the iron safes/steel box was not covered under the insurance policy and that in the instant case the two Surveyors appointed by the Respondent/Insurance Company after a detailed inquiry had found that only Rs.20,000/- have been burgled from the steel box and the rest of the money burgled was lying in a room and thus outside the safe. Under the circumstances, Respondent/Insurance Company had rightly repudiated the claim.

THE District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint by observing that since the Petitioners were counting the cash before putting it inside the iron safe in the same room where the safe was installed, a liberal interpretation needs to be taken since it is natural that one counts the money before putting it into the safe which is what the Petitioners were doing and, therefore, the claim in respect of the entire loss deserves to be indemnified. By refusing to do so, Respondent/Insurance Company is guilty for deficiency in service. The District Forum, therefore, directed the Respondent/Insurance Company to pay the Petitioners, Rs.1,76,500/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from 19.01.2003 and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within 60 days from the date of the order.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Respondent/Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the appeal by observing as follows: "The fact is crystal clear that the money was taken away by the culprits as alleged from a place which was outside the iron-chest. This is an admitted position. But the Forum appears to have resorted to twisting the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in such a ludicrous way as discussed above. The policy clearly provides that risk covered on cash/currency notes kept in the "safe " being Godrej-25 "X20 ", 100 Kgs. Weight, kept in the shop premises built of brick walls with roof of C.I.Sheet etc. Therefore, there cannot be any escape from the plain and simple conclusion that the burglary took place in respect of the cash, if at all, which was not in the iron-safe of the complainant, but at a place which was outside it. If that be so, under the said clear terms of the contract, the complainant cannot be entitled to get more than what has been awarded by the Insurance Co. on the basis of its surveyors '' report and there was thus no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the recovery part of the claim of the complainant. "

Hence, the present revision petition.

LEARNED Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Learned Counsel for Petitioners stated that the fact that the burglary had taken place is not in dispute and the loss suffered and the incident as reported by the Petitioners was also confirmed by both the surveyors of the Respondent/Insurance Company. The District Forum in appreciation of all the facts in their totality had rightly accepted the Petitioners '' contentions. Unfortunately, the State Commission erroneously concluded that only Rs.20,000/- was kept in the steel box and the remaining money was lying outside the safe. In fact the entire money was in the safe from where it was burgled and these facts were also mentioned in the FIR lodged with the Police. Further, the insurance policy had been taken to cover the risks of burglary and in the instance case, and there was no dispute that the burglary had taken place. Under these circumstances, the Respondent/Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the genuine claim of the Petitioners.

COUNSEL for Respondent/Insurance Company on the other hand brought to our notice a copy of the insurance proposal form in respect of the insurance policy which was duly signed by the Petitioners and wherein it was clearly stated that the property to be insured was in respect of coins, notes and currency kept in the locked safe amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- and cash amounting to Rs.20,000/-, thus totaling to Rs.1,50,000/-. The Surveyors who thoroughly investigated the incident confirmed that except for Rs.20,000/- which was burgled from the steel box, the remaining money was not burgled from the safe but from the room where the safe was installed. Even, the District Forum who had ruled against the Respondent/Insurance Company had admitted this fact. It is well established that an insurance being a contract between the two parties is to be interpreted and settled strictly as per the agreed terms and conditions stated in the insurance proposal form/insurance policy documents. In the instant case, the claim of the Petitioners was examined as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and justifiably repudiated in respect of the burgled amount of Rs.1,55,000/- which at the time of burglary was not in the safe. The State Commission had, therefore, rightly allowed the Respondent ''s appeal. We have heard learned Counsel for both parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

IT is not in dispute that a burglary had taken place and in which the total amount of Rs.1,76,500/- was burgled. These facts have also been confirmed by the report of the two Surveyors. The Insurance Proposal Form submitted by the Respondent/Insurance Company in the prescribed format is also in evidence before us and which clearly states that as per proposal of the Petitioners themselves the Respondent/Insurance Company had only insured those coins, notes and currency which were kept in the locked safe amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- in the steel box. Therefore, we do not agree with the liberal interpretation of the District Forum which while admitting that Rs.1,55,000/- was not in the locked safe but was being counted outside for being put in the safe, held that the same would be covered under the insurance policy. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal - (2004) 8 SCC 644, IV 2004 CPJ 15 (SC) , the Hon ''ble Supreme Court has held that the terms of the contract have to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. No outside aid should be sought unless the meaning is ambiguous. In the instant case, there is no ambiguity in the insurance proposal form signed by the Petitioners and submitted to the Respondent/Insurance Company on the basis of which the insurance policy was issued. The reports of the two Surveyors further confirmed that Rs.1,55,000/- was not burgled from the safe but from a room. It is settled law that the Surveyor ''s report has significant evidentiary value unless proved to the contrary. In the instant case, Petitioners have not been able to produce any evidence to contradict the Surveyors '' reports. Keeping in view all the above facts, we agree with the findings of the State Commission that the claim was rightly repudiated by the Respondents/Insurance Company and there was no deficiency in service on its part and the amount as admissible as per the insurance policy i.e. Rs.20,000/- burgled from the steel box was paid to the Petitioners. The claim in respect of the money not burgled from the safe could not be paid since it was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The order of the State Commission is, therefore, upheld and the revision petition/complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.