BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SRIDHAR N.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the O.P. challenging the Order of the Shimoga District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, allowing the complaint of the complainant. The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant is doing the business in Pharmaceuticals. He had obtained "Shop Keepers Policy" wherein the compensation payable limited to Rs. 82.00 lakh from the O.P. for a period from 30.7.2006 to 29.7.2007. According to the complainant, the amount of Rs. 1,35,000 kept in his shop for the purpose of sending the same to the Bank was stolen on 2.11.2006 at about 11.30 p.m. by removing the sheet of the shop by some unknown miscreants. According to him, the said theft was covered under the Policy as it was in transit and, therefore, the Insurance Company is to pay the compensation to the extent of money lost by him. The claim of the complainant for the payment of compensation was repudiated by the Insurance Company stating that the Policy does not cover the risk as it was not in transit since it was lost when it is in the safe custody of the complainant. This repudiation has made the complainant to file the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service. The District Forum accepting the case of the complaint allowed the complaint of the complainant by directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 to the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. This Order is under challenge by the O.P. in this appeal.

(2.) THE point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Is the District Forum justified in allowing the complaint of the complainant?

(3.) ACCORDING to the complainant, he had collected the amount of Rs. 1,35,000 from his business on 1.11.2006 and after closure of the business on the said day kept the amount in the shop premises in order to send the said amount to the Bank on the next day. But, in the meanwhile, at 11.30 p.m. on 2.11.2006 the amount was stolen by the miscreants. The case of the complainant is that since the money is kept in his premises with a view to send the same to the Bank, it is to be considered as money in transit and, therefore, the Insurance Comapny is not right in repudiating the claim on the ground that it is not covered under the policy. The Distirct Forum relying on the decision in Tomlinson (A) (Hauliers) v. Hepburn, (1966) 1 All.ER 418 (HL) has held that though the amount kept in the shop premises, since it was meant to be sent to the Bank, it is to be considered as money in transit. The said decision, in our view, has no application to the facts of this case. Because, in the above said decision, it is clearly said that the goods though reached the premises of the consignee, since it had not been unloaded, it is to be considered as a goods in transit "since the terms of the carriage agreement covers the said risk". In the said decision, it is held that the said risk is covered under the carriage agreement. In the case on hand, there is no such agreement between the parties. Therefore, in order to consider whether the complainant is entitled for compensation, it is just and necessary to refer to the terms of the policy. The relevant term of the policy is 3.1 which reads as follows: "The company will indemnify the insured for the loss in transit of money whilst carried by the insured or its employee, caused during the policy period by robbery, theft or any other fortuitous event. As per the Oxford Dictionary, the word 'transit' means: The action or fact of passing across or through; passage or journey from one place or point to another; the passage or carriage of persons or goods from one place to another, it also means to pass across or through (something) to traverse, to cross."