A.K.ANNAMALAI,JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.) THE unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
(2.) THE complainant having Forex services dealing with various money transactions including foreign currencies, Travelers Cheques, Cash etc obtained a policy from the opposite party covering the risk upto Rs.23,25,00,000/ - continued the policy for the year 2002 -2003 covering the branch offices with the risk coverage restricted to defined mishaps occurring during transit between the declared addresses for the specific limit of coverage for every branch, compulsory reporting of addresses of existing branches as well as opening of new branches and submission of statement relating to the transactions and accordingly a new policy was issued on 23.6.2003 for the sum being Rs.20 crores on payment of premium of Rs.1.10 lakhs with condition under the head distance "Various between various branches to banks, customer places, dealers, other money changes, directors, residence and transit between branches anywhere in India. On 7.5.2004 when the complainant's area Manager Badrinarayanan was carrying travelers cheques 40 in numbers valid 20,000 US dollars from New Delhi office at South Extension -II to their Gurgaon Branch, the cheques were lost and complaint was lodged and on the basis of the same when the claim was made the opposite party repudiated the claim even though surveyor assessed and recommended the loss for Rs.8,65,000/ - and the original policy was not issued by the opposite party and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed.
(3.) THE opposite party denying the allegations contended that the complainant had forwarded a letter dated 20.06.2003 containing with a list of branch offices and seeking money insurance for the branches covered and the cover stated to be required for a sum of Rs.20 crores with insured limit for Rs.5,00,000/ - for one incident limit and thereby the intention is not to grant any cover without reference to actual branches of the complainant and the policy covers losses in transit only while money being carried between specified places. But in this case the cheques were lost between the branches at South Extension -II New Delhi and Gurgaon which were not covered under the policy in terms of the permitted offices as per RBI licence on the date of insurance. But the location has been altered and increased and thereby the claim was repudiated. On the basis of both sides materials after an enquiry the District Forum accepting the contentions of the opposite party came to the conclusion that the claim made towards loss between the branches are not covered under the policy and there was no policy terms to cover the risk as per Ex.B1 dismissed the complaint.;