United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs ISSEWAL CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LTD.

THIS appeal is by United India Insurance Company Ltd. filed against order of the District Forum, Ludhiana dated February 2,1996. The complaint filed by Issewal Coop. Agricultural Service Society Ltd. was allowed with the direction to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 46,250/-with 15% interest p.a. w.e.f. October 29, till realisation, except for the period May 9, to June 15, 1993 during which period the fault lay with the complainant as he had filed a suit against the opposite party.

THE complainant-Society purchased an insurance policy from the appellant on December 8,1989. THE policy was valid up to December 7, 1990. THE risk covered under the policy was against burglary, accident or misfortune, terrorist act and during transit from the complainant''s premises to the bank premises in the district for the moneys handled by the complainant. On October 29, 1990 when employees of the complainant were handling cash in order to take it to the bank, while in the premises of the complainant, some unknown persons entered the same and deprived them of the cash amount of Rs. 46,250/- on gun point. A report was lodged with the police and claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. Legal notice was also served upon the Insurance Company to settle the claim. THE complainant filed a suit for mandatory injunction, which was dismissed on June 15,1993 on the ground that there were other more effecttive remedies available, it was thereafter that the present complaint was filed, claiming aforesaid amount with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. October 29,1990. The Insurance Company contested the claim inter alia taking up several legal pleas. One of them being that the complaint was barred by time and the other that the incident was not covered by the terms of the policy. It was further stated that the complaint was not filed within 12 months from the repudiation of the claim. Otherwise, it was admitted that insurance policy was obtained by the complainant as stated above. In appeal learned Counsel for the Insurance Company-the appellant has argued that since Civil Suit was earlier filed, no relief under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act could be granted to the complainant. This contention is devoid of merit. As already stated above, the suit was dismissed on technical ground that appropriate other remedy was available. The suit was not decided on merits. Such a decision cannot be treated as bar for approaching the District Forum for the grant of relief as permissible under the Act.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has strongly argued that the incident was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. He has made reference to such terms as contained in the copy of the insurance policy Annexure C-2. The relevant clause reads as under: "The Company hereby agrees subject to the terms and conditions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise expressed hereon the insured shall sustain LOSS of MONEY by (b) ACCIDENT or MISFORTUNE whilst such money in hands of the insured''s employees is in transit between the places stated herein or (c) BURGLARY and/or HOUSEBREAKING whilst such money after arrival at the insured premises stated herein is retained for a period not exceeding forty eight (48) hours from the time of arrival provided such money is secured in burglar resisting safe or strong room installed in the insured premises."

The endorsement Annexure ''C'' attached thereto covers the risk for transit and terrorist activity. The relevant clauses read as under : "Loss or damage to the property insured by explosion or otherwise directly caused by : (i) an act of terrorism committed by a person or persons acting on behalf of or in connection with any organisation. (ii) the action of any lawfully constituted authority in suppressing or attempting to suppress any such act referred to in (i) or in minimising the conesquence thereof.

THREE contentions have been raised by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, First contention raised is that since the alleged incident took place when the money was not in the safe, the complainant is not entitled to the amount. Secondly, the money was not in transit as it was still at the premises of the complainant and the complainant, therefore, cannot take benefit of the insurance policy. Finally, it is argued that in the complaint, there was no assertion that the intruders were armed with fire arms when burglary was committed and thus the risk was not covered under the endorsement attached to the policy. In our considered view, there is no merit in these contentions. The insurance policy is to be read as a whole. The purpose was to insure the risk of loss of money, which was being transacted by the complainant. The complainant used to receive money and the same used to be deposited in the bank. Thus, he got both the risks covered against burglary whether committed at the premises or during transit. The contention that one of the terms of the policy contemplated that the money was to be kept in the safe, does not mean that theft of money committed from the safe, was only covered. It is a complete process of receiving money, counting it, keeping it in the safe and, then at the appropriate time taking it out, counting it and then taking it to the bank, was the risk covered. The contract of insurance cannot be segregated into parts to suit the Insurance Company and the terms of the insurance policy are to be so construed that object of the insurance policy is achieved not that on flimsy ground, the insurance policy is rendered redundant. In other words, the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to raise technical or flimsy ground to deny the claim. In our view, the risk involved was covered by all the three clauses referred to above. Money was not required to be kept in the safe for all times to come. When it was put in safe, it was to be taken out. The contention that only risk of loss of money from the safe itself was covered, cannot be accepted. Secondly, the risk of taking money from the premises of the bank was also covered. It would be too technical to urge that the risk was covered during transit only when the person carrying the money, left outer gate of the premises of the complainant. As already stated above, it was a process complete of receiving money, keeping it in the safe, taking it out and finally taking it to the bank. When the money was taken out of the safe for being taken to the bank, the transit process started. Finally, the complainant was also entitled to the amount claimed as it was a terrorist act. No doubt, in the complaint it was not mentioned that the intruders were armed with Fire Arms. However, in the FIR, which was promptly recorded, this fact finds mention, copy Annexure C-5. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. The directions given by the District Forum with respect to payment of the insurance amount with interest are affirmed. Appeal dismissed with costs. _______________