KUNDAN LAL FILLING STATION Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has filed this application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP because of non -performance/non - compliance of the stipulated terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

(2.) THE same is being contested by the OPs who filed written statement to which the complainant filed rejoinder. Evidence has been led by way of affidavit and arguments have been addressed. We have gone through the record.

(3.) THERE is no dispute regarding the facts that the complainant was insured with the OP for almost three decades under various insurance coverage including cash in safe/cash at counter/cash in transit. Relevant policy in question covering cash -in -safe insurance bears No. 4632030002276 for the period from 10.7.1999 to 9.7.2000 which is Annexure A -6, as per which cash on counter safe was insured for Rs. 3,50,000 and cash on Cash Room Almirah was insured for Rs. 5,50,000. In the night of 14.11.1999 a theft occurred in the premises of the complainant and cash amounting to Rs. 9,61,578 was reported to be stolen vide FIRNo. 673/99 dated 15.11.1999 lodged with the Police Station and simultaneously report was lodged with the OP Insurance Company who deputed Surveyor Er. (Lt. Col) G.P.S. Bagga who visited and inspected the site of the theft and submitted survey report. The OP also deputed Mrs. Sandhya Kameshwara, CA to look into the accounting system of the complainant who also submitted report that cash was stolen and verified about the theft having taken place of Rs. 9,61,578, mentioning that maximum liability of cash at safe is Rs. 5,50,000. On 15.9.2000 the OP paid Rs. 5,50,000 to the complainant who issued receipt that he accepted it in full satisfaction and discharge of its claim under the Policy in question. Thereafter the complainant sent protest letter dated 31.10.2000 to the OP which according to the OP is an afterthought. The complainant/insured has come up with this case alleging that part amount released by the OP was accepted under the protest and that it is entitled to claim the remaining amount as follows: