Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 873 (UTT)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. CHAMAN LAL

2010-12-15

C.C.PANT, IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2010
ORDER (Per : C.C. Pant, Member) This is insurance company’s appeal against the order dated 25.04.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing the consumer complaint No. 106 of 2007 and directing the insurance company to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 1,86,056/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Sh. Chaman Lal, proprietor M/s Valley Gas Service, Dehradun – complainant had got his shop insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited – opposite party for the period from 25.01.2005 to 24.01.2006 under a Multiperil Policy for L.P.G. Dealers, providing insurance for the risks against fire/burglary, gas cylinder in transit, loss/theft of money and public liability. The policy was for sum of Rs. 2,034,000/-. On 21.09.2005, a theft took place in the complainant’s shop and sum of Rs. 2,14,511/- was stolen by some unknown thieves by breaking the almirah’s locker. The complainant informed the police immediately and lodged an FIR. The policy provided an insurance coverage of Rs. 2,75,000/- for money. The complainant submitted a claim with the opposite party for indemnification of the loss of Rs. 2,14,511/- due to the alleged theft, but the opposite party initially did not take any action and ultimately, on 20.07.2006, the complainant received a letter from the opposite party that his claim was accepted by the company for sum of Rs. 5,000/- only. As it was not acceptable, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the facts of the case and its legal aspects, allowed the consumer complaint in the above terms vide order dated 25.04.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the same is admitted for decision on merit. 5. Before advancing his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the appellant had made a lapse in assessing the admissible claim. According to him, the admissible claim is Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-, as approved by the appellant. Continuing his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the policy provides an insurance coverage for the money upto a limit of Rs. According to him, the admissible claim is Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-, as approved by the appellant. Continuing his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the policy provides an insurance coverage for the money upto a limit of Rs. 2,75,000/- in the following manner (Paper No. 50): 1. Money whilst in transit in the custody of delivery boys Rs. 15,000/- 2. Money whilst in transit in the custody of Authorized employees/insured to/from bank Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. Money in safe/steel cupboard/cash box Rs. 50,000/- 4. Money elsewhere in premises Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs. 2,75,000/- 6. The complainant’s claim falls under category (3) and, therefore, he is entitled to get sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Clarifying the stand taken by the appellant, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant, while considering the complainant’s claim, relied on the report of the surveyor who, due to some confusion, recommended to settle the claim for Rs. 5,000/-. However, the learned counsel vehemently argued that an insurance policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer and, therefore, the terms of the policy should be strictly construed the way as these are mentioned in the policy. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel referred a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal; 2005 (1) CPR 64 (SC). The District Forum has failed to appreciate this legal aspect of the case and has exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that the terms laid down in the policy are against the provision of Section 23 of the Contract Act. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent – complainant submitted that the appellant had never provided the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. What the insured – complainant had received was the cover page of the policy. Now, at this stage, it would not be just to refer to these terms and conditions of the policy. 8. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In respect of the insurance coverage for money, the policy reads as under: “3. MONEY INSURANCE 1, 2, 3, 4” (Paper No. 35) 9. The complainant had been taking such a policy for the last several years and, therefore, we can not believe that he was ignorant of what “1, 2, 3, 4” are meant for. In respect of the insurance coverage for money, the policy reads as under: “3. MONEY INSURANCE 1, 2, 3, 4” (Paper No. 35) 9. The complainant had been taking such a policy for the last several years and, therefore, we can not believe that he was ignorant of what “1, 2, 3, 4” are meant for. If he did not care to understand what these numbers mean for, it was his fault. We can not believe that the complainant took the policy with the belief that the insurance coverage under various perils was unconditional. Therefore, we agree to what the learned counsel for the appellant submitted in respect of the money insurance provided under the policy and accordingly, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellant. The District Forum has erred by holding that the terms of the policy are against the provision of Section 23 of the Contract Act and has, thus, acted beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, the order of the District Forum in respect of awarding sum of Rs. 1,86,056/- to the complainant needs modification. However, a higher rate of interest, i.e., 9% p.a., as awarded by the District Forum, is justifiable, because the appellant has failed to take a just and timely decision in respect of complainant’s claim and relied on its surveyor’s report without applying its own mind. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 25.04.2009 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 1,86,056/- to Rs. 50,000/-. Rest of the order of the District Forum is confirmed. No order as to costs.