Decided on September 30,2013

Anjali Sales Corporation And Anr. Respondents


Usha S.Thakare, J. - (1.)BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 passed in consumer complaint No. 498/2006 by learned District Forum, South Mumbai, original opponent/appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Facts giving rise to the present appeal in short are as under:
The complainant/respondent is a proprietary firm dealing in business of rubber and chemical trading. The complainant earned his livelihood from said firm. The complainant carries on his business at 516/17, 18, Reena Complex, Ramdev Nagar Road, Vidyavihar (West), Mumbai and having its registered office at 110 Sharada Chambers No. 2, Keshavji Naik Road, Bhat Bazar, Mumbai. Opponent is a divisional office of Insurance Company, carrying on business of general insurance and in the process underwrites the risk under various disciplines of insurance such as fire, marine, engineering, motor and other miscellaneous business. The opponent/appellant had issued Office Protection Shield Policy bearing No. 112500/48/04/01583 for period 17.2.2005 to 16.2.2006. The complainant has deposited amount of Rs. 4,027 with opponent towards premium.

(2.)VARIOUS risks were covered under the said policy. Son of the complainant, namely, Mr. Neerav Mange, aged about 19 years used to assist his father in managing business after attending his college and even otherwise in case of urgency/emergency during free time and also on holidays and vacation. According to the complainant on 5.3.2005 his son -Neerav after attending his tuition classes reached to the office of the complainant which is at Reena Complex, Vidyavihar. The complainant had kept aside an amount of Rs. 1 lakh for payment of wages of the workers and other dues in the business. He had also withdrawn cash of Rs. 2 lakh to meet business commitments. The complainant had called the General Meeting of the Members of the Reena Complex at 6.00 p.m. Therefore, he was busy. He directed his son -Neerav to carry cash of Rs. 3 lakh lying in the office to the residence in safe custody. On getting direction from the complainant, his son -Neerav left for home from office about 7.25 p.m. On 5.3.2005 4 at 7.25 p.m. Neerav Mange carried cash in Rickshaw in Rexene handbag. He took Auto -Rickshaw near Vidyavihar Police Chowky. He was holding bag containing cash on his lap during the travel. When vehicle reached near Kirol Village road, a gang of 3/4 persons rounded him and snatched his bag by diverting Neerav's attention. Snatcher started running with bag towards Premier Company road. Despite chasing the robbers they escaped with bag containing cash. Report was filed in Ghatkopar Police Station. F.I.R. was registered with No. 92/2005. Offence was registered under Section 379 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Loss was intimated to the opponent/Insurance Company vide letter dated 7.3.2005. Opponent/appellant appointed Surveyor. Surveyor visited office of the complainant who made inquiry and went through several documents. The complainant had submitted insurance policy, receipt of payment of premium, copy of F.I.R. and other material documents to the opponent and requested the Insurance Company to satisfy the loss as per terms of the insurance policy. His claim was turned down by the Insurance Company. Therefore, complainant had filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against opponent/Insurance Company before the learned District Forum.
Opponent/Insurance Company opposed the complaint by filing written version and denied all adverse allegations against them. It is an admitted fact that opponent had issued Office Protection Shield Policy bearing No. 112500/48/04/01583 for a period 17.2.2005 to 16.2.2006. It is submitted that the complainant/respondent had reported loss under the said policy to the opponent/Insurance Company, who in turn appointed Surveyor and sought various documents to verify and assess the loss. The Surveyor in his fact finding report observed that in F.I.R., name of the insured (M/s. Anjali Sales Corporation) did not feature anywhere as owner of stolen cash of Rs. 1 Lakh. The insured had failed to prove their insurable interest in the cash lost in the referred incident. The Surveyor further observed that the insured's version that Mr. Neerav Mange being employed with them seems to be an afterthought. Policy covers the loss of money while in transit for business purpose. Taking money home from office premises cannot be considered as transit for business purpose. Therefore, claim of the complainant was rejected assigning the reasons for the same. Complaint is without merit and, it may please be dismissed with cost.

(3.)AFTER considering the evidence and documents available on record and after giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, learned District Forum was pleased to allow the complaint partly with cost by its order dated 24.7.2009.

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