SIROHI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
LAWS(RAJCDRC)-2006-1-3
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 10,2006

Sirohi Central Cooperative Bank Limited Appellant
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986") has been filed by the appellant -The Sirohi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (for short "the Bank") against the order dated 8.10.1996 passed by the learned District Forum, Sirohi in Case No. 1/1996 by which the complaint filed by the complainant -appellant under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was partially allowed in the manner that out of the claim amount of Rs. 1,28,656, since 75% has been paid, therefore, rest 25% amount of Rs. 32,164 be paid by the respondents to the appellant Bank within 30 days from the date of making available copy of charge sheet, failing which the appellant Bank would be entitled to get interest on the above amount @ 15% from the date of making available copy of charge sheet till realization. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Bank for enhancement of the claim amount.
(2.)IT may be stated here that on 11.12.1995, the appellant Bank had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Sirohi stating inter alia that the appellant -Bank had taken a Banker s Blanket Policy bearing No. 4070214/11/1/257/93 -94 for Rs. 5 lacs from the respondents for the period from 4.7.1993 to 31.3.l994. It was further stated in the complaint that for the period from 28.12.1993 to 12.1.1994, when audit was made, it was found that Rs. 4,82,011 were embezzled by the employee of the appellant -Bank and that embezzlement was committed by Balwant Singh Solanki, employee of the appellant Bank during the period from 10.3.1992 to 7.12.1993. For the above amount, a claim was preferred by the appellant bank before the respondents and the respondents had found the case of the appellant valid for Rs. 1,28,656 and not for Rs. 4,82.011 as prayed for by the appellant Bank.
(3.)A reply was filed by the respondents on 26.7.1996 and their case was that the matter was being examined by their Surveyor Vardhman Insurance Services Private Ltd. and the Surveyor, after inspecting the whole record of the appellant -Bank, had come to the conclusion that total loss suffered by the appellant -Bank was Rs. 4,82,011 as alleged by the appellant bank and on point of insurance liability, the Surveyor had come to the conclusion that the present loss was covered under item "D -Dishonesty" of the Insurance Policy and in view of the terms and conditions of the proviso to the policy, the appellant -Bank would bear the first 25% of each loss under item "D -Dishonesty" or 2% of the basic sum insured whichever is higher, but not exceeding Rs. 50,000. In other words, the insurance liability was fixed by the Surveyor on the basis of each loss which has occurred during the period in question meaning thereby for example, for a particular month, if there was embezzlement of Rs. 10,000, that was to be dealt with as per terms and conditions of the proviso to the policy, which read as follows : "(a) Excess : Insured shall bear the first 25% of each loss under items "A" to "D" or 2% of the basic sum insured whichever is higher, but not exceeding Rs. 50,000. Each loss in respect of each dishonest or criminal act shall be treated as a separate loss.." The Surveyor was of the view that each loss was to be considered and, therefore, the case of the appellant that it would bear 25% of the total amount was not found favourable by the Surveyor. Thus, Surveyor had come to the conclusion that insurance liability was to the tune of Rs. 1,28,656, though loss assessed was Rs. 4,82,011.
The learned District Forum, Sirohi through impugned order dated 8.10.1996 had found the insurance liability as put forward by the Surveyor and the case of the appellant Bank that out of Rs. 4,82,011, 75% would be paid by the respondents was not found favourable.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.