- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 22.08.09, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.333/ 06, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein has been dismissed, which was in respect of compensation for theft of insured amount of the complainant/Bank, under the terms of the policy.
(2.) IN nutshell, facts of the case are that the appellant herein is a Cooperative Bank, working at the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The Bank has opted for a Bankers' Indemnity Policy from the respondent bearing No.320805/46/7701292 for the period from 26.03.03 to 25.03.04. The policy was provided for all the Branches of the Bank, situated in district Raipur and for the amount carried by employees of the Bank, for that period. Premium of Rs.2,23,000 was paid for that purpose and policy document. Annexure A -1 was issued by the insurance company. It is alleged by the complainant that on 10.01.04 during day time, when cashier Daulat Ram Verma and peon Anup Chand Dhruw were bringing cash of Rs.20,00.000 in a steel box, keeping the same in a rickshaw from Bhatapara Branch of the Bank, then in the way, some unknown miscreants looted the cash by throwing red chilly powder in the eyes of employees of the Bank. The incident was reported to the police and the insurance company was also intimated. Claim was preferred before the insurance company on 22.01.04, which was repudiated by the Company on the ground that no steps were taken by the Bank for safeguarding the insured property and therefore no amount under the policy was payable.
(3.) THE case of the appellant is that, only one page policy document was given to the Bank at the time of insurance and terms and conditions of the policy were not provided by the insurance company. There was no term agreed between the parties that armed guard was required to be accompanied in case of cash in transit of more than a particular amount. It is alleged that insurance company has committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. In reply the insurance company has asserted that along with schedule of premium, terms and conditions of the policy were also supplied to the Bank. The cash amount was being transmitted without security guards in a rickshaw, negligently and it was violation of policy term No.4 (b) and on account of this violation of policy term, no amount was payable to the appellant by the insurance company. It was also averred that a surveyor was appointed by the insurance company to assess the loss and he -has also reported that no amount was payable on account of this violation of policy terms.;