Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present application is by the petitioner who is covered by a cash Insurance policy issued by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. It is stated that first in the year 2001 an employee of the Company reported that while he was bringing money to the Company Office after collecting the same it was snatched at Gandhi Setu on way from Muzaffarpur.The petitioner lodged an F.I.R. and after investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the said employee himself from whom partial recovery was made. The petitioner asserts that as against the said claim the petitioner submitted a copy of the final report as submitted by the police in the shape of charge-sheet. By Annexure-9 dated 4.11.2003 the Insurance Company rebutted that their claim of loss of cash due to infidelity of employee would be considered only when they submit final report duly accepted by C.J.M. 3. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said communication is absolutely illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the charge-sheet submitted by police is nothing but a final report as contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Copy of charge-sheet having been submitted and the Court having taken cognizance of offence as mentioned therein nothing more is required to be done, the Insurance Company was bound to entertain and settle the claim. Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi submits that the police found that the employee had embezzled money that is not covered by policy. 4. Having heard the parties on this account, l find that the submissions as made by Mr. Sanjay has to be sustained. In the Annexure-9 the letter of the Insurance Company it only says that the party was required to submit final report without appreciating what the final report actually means. A final report may be in the form of charge-sheet or a final report in the form of mistaken case. A final report is the conclusion of investigation that was duly submitted, it is now for the Insurance Company to proceed to examine and settle the claim in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today and l direct accordingly. So far as second claim is concerned, that arose because of admitted snatching of cash while in transit from Biharsharif to Patna and the incident took place at Dhobi Pool under Fatuha Police Station within the district of Patna. So far as second claim is concerned, that arose because of admitted snatching of cash while in transit from Biharsharif to Patna and the incident took place at Dhobi Pool under Fatuha Police Station within the district of Patna. As per the counter-affidavit the said claim has been repudiated on the sole basis that the coverage area of cash Insurance Policy as per the policy application form was 30 kilometres as the cash was being brought from Biharsharif i.e. 80 kilometres the claim would not be entertained. In the said report the loss has also been assessed and fixed at Rs. 1,30,000 on the basis of the said survey report that the insurance claim has been rejected. 5. Having heard the parties it appears the dispute is as to what is understood by coverage area of 30 kilometers from the place of business otherwise there is no other dispute. Coverage area would obviously mean an area within which the property i.e. cash would be deemed to be insured against any incident which is cognizable by the policy. If the incident of loot or theft took place while cash was in transit at a place beyond 30 kilometres from the place of business that would not be covered but if such an incident took place within 30 kilometres it is obvious it would be an incident within the coverage area entitling to settlement of claim irrespective of its original destination. It is for this obvious mistake that the claim of the petitioner has been denied. l may also say that what the Surveyor says is only a fact finding report. Whether basing on that report the claim has to be settled or not, is the decision which the Company has to take independently. The Company cannot ignore the report so far as facts are concerned but it is not bound by the recommendation made in the report. It has to independently apply its mind to the facts as found by the Surveyor and come to a conclusion. ln the present case, the Company has acted in a most mechanical and pedantic manner in adopting to the Surveyor report having been carried from Biharsharif which was beyond 30 kilometres coverage area. It was apparently so because it enure to the benefit of the Insurance Company. 6. ln the present case, the Company has acted in a most mechanical and pedantic manner in adopting to the Surveyor report having been carried from Biharsharif which was beyond 30 kilometres coverage area. It was apparently so because it enure to the benefit of the Insurance Company. 6. In that view of the matter, l direct that so far as the first claim of the petitioner is concerned, the Insurance Company must take steps to decide the same and settle the same in accordance with law. So far as the second claim is concerned, they will take final decision preferably within one month from today in view of the interpretation as given by this court. 7. With this observation this writ application is allowed.