At, Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. RAJENDRA SINGH
By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Appellant: Lokpati Yadav, Advocate. For the Respondent: B.P. Dubey, Advocate.
Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member
This appeal has been preferred under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act against judgment and order dated 1.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jaupur in complaint case No. 268 of 2010.
2. In short, the grounds of appeal are that, that the learned District Forum, Jaunpur has exceeded its jurisdiction and pronounced the judgment in mechanical manner, without application of mind and without considering the facts and evidence of the appellant. The ld. Forum failed to consider that the business premises and residents of the appellant are in same building. The Learned Forum failed to appreciate that the fact that as per the terms of the Insurance Policy the money can be kept at residence. The learned Forum failed to appreciate that the incident of theft took place between the business premises and local bank which is covered. The learned Forum failed to appreciate the fact that as per policy the money can be kept at residence and the same can be carried between business premises and local bank during business hours.
3. The learned Forum failed to appreciate that 5 December, 2008 was Friday and 6 December 2008 was Saturday and the bank works only till 12 p.m. and 7 December, 2008 was Sunday, due to which the money was kept at residence as per policy but the incident took place between the area of business premises and local bank which was covered under insurance policy. It is pertinent to mention that there is no denial of the respondents that the incident did not take place. The learned Forum rejected the complaint on the ground that the money was taken out of residence and soon thereafter the incident took place. Hence it is most respectfully prayed that the judgment and order dated 1.11.2012 passed in the complaint case No. 268 /2010 may kindly be set aside and the respondent be directed to pay the insurance amount of 5 lakh with 18% interest and damages up to 1 lakh and any other order which the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Lokpati Yadav and learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. B.P. Dubey and perused the pleadings evidence and documents on record.
5. Firstly we perused the insurance policy which was from 5 August, 2008 to midnight of 4.8.2009. In the column of address between which money will be carried is mentioned as business premises to local bank and vice versa. Mode of transport is written as bike or rickshaw.
6. We also perused the impugned judgment. The Learned Forum has stated in its judgment that there was insurance of Rs. 5 lakhs for the transportation of money between the premises of Service Station and bank and vice versa. The incident occurred on 8 December, 2008 at about 11.30 a.m. at the time when outside of the house of complainant, some unknown miscreants snatched the cash from his cashier . So it is clear that the cash was taken away from the cashier outside the house of complainant. Later on some money was recovered and Rs. 1,21,330 has been released in favour of the complainant by the Court . The learned Forum has also said that that the amount can be transported between commercial premises and bank but it does not include the cash kept at the residence of complainant. There is nothing in the policy to show that if the loot occurs during transportation of money from complainant residence to the bank or to some other places will be covered by the insurance policy. It is clear that the money was looted near a neem tree situated in front of the complainant’s residence by three unknown miscreants having country made gun. This fact has been entered into the First Information Report so nothing otherwise can be pleaded and there should be no deviation from the version of the First Information Report. The company repudiated the claim on the ground that the place where the occurrence occurred has not been covered under the policy.
7. So it is clear that the place where the loot has been carried out, does not come under the purview of the insurance policy and therefore the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The impugned judgment of the learned District Forum needs no interference by
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
this Court and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 1.11.2012 passed by the Ld District Consumer Forum, Jaupur in complaint case No. 268 of 2010 is confirmed. 2. The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 3. Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.