RAM KUMAR AGGARWAL vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainant is a practicing Advocate on taxation side. Financial Consultant and Patent and Trade Mark Attorney and has office at 241, (3rd Floor), Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006 for the last more than 10 years. He got insured the assets of his office from the Opposite Party vide policy dated 10.2.92 for one year i.e., from 10.2.92 to 9.2.93 under the burglary policy. He also obtained money insurance policy from 10.2.92 to 9.2.93 from them. Both the policies were got renewed by him w.e.f. 10.2.93 for one year.

ON the night intervening 8.10.92 and 9.10.92 a burglary took place by breaking the locks in the Office. The matter was reported to the Police on 9.10.92. It is alleged that cash amounting to Rs. 84,549.50 and some other articles were stolen from there. The total loss was of Rs. 1,07,480.50 paise. It is further alleged that the Opposite Party was informed about the burglary who appointed M/s. V.K. Kharbanda & Associates as Surveyors to assess the loss. They, after making extensive inquiry assessed the loss at Rs. 79,525/-, but in spite of repeated requests the Opposite Party has not offered the payment according to the report but offered only a sum of Rs. 12,525/-, the price of the television set and some other amount vide their letter dated 27.4.93, which was not acceptable to the complainant. A further amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been claimed by him from the Opposite Party as damages for mental agony, harassment etc. Hence the complaint.

The Opposite Party contested the complaint. They inter-alia pleaded that under burglary policy complainant''s claim has been accepted but he had not collected the payment. However, regarding loss of the cash under money policy he was not entitled to any claim as he infringed its terms and conditions under Clause (3) of the exceptions according to which the money was to be kept in locked safe or strongroom but it had not been done.

THE first question that arises for determination is, whether the case of the complainant falls under Clause (3) of the exceptions which reads as follows: "Exceptions : THE company shall not be liable in respect of any loss of money:- (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx (3) occurring on premises which at the time are closed, unless the money is in a locked safe or strongroom." From a reading of the clause it is clear that for making the claim from the insurer, two conditions are to be satisfied by the insured; firstly the premises should be closed and secondly, the money should be kept in a safe or strongroom.

IT is not disputed that when the theft took place the premises were locked. Thus the first condition stands, satisfied . IT is, therefore, now to be determined, whether the second condition stands satisfied. The words ''safe'' and ''strong-room'' have not been denned in the C.P. Act. In Black''s Law Dictionary 6th Edition, the word ''safe'' has been defined as ''a metal receptacle for the preservation of valuables''. According to the report of the Surveyor dated 4.3.93 the money was kept in the drawer of an Almirah. It was not a steel drawer nor the Almirah was steel Almirah. Therefore, it cannot be held that the money was kept in a safe. It is now to be seen, whether the room where the money had been kept was a ''strongroom. The word ''strongroom'' has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows:- "Proof against burglars etc. for keeping valuables in"

IN order to determine whether the room where the money had been kept by the complainant, was a strongroom or not, the report of the Surveyor (ibid) is reproduced: "Details of the premises: The premises of the insured are located on the third floor above Canara Bank, Fateh Puri, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and are approachable by a, staircase. The entrance to the premises is provided by a collapsible steel gate followed by another gate of glass in wooden frame protected by a grill. The front portion of the office is occupied by staff where as the back portion right hand side is used for placing of Almirahs and left hand side is used by the insured himself. There is only one entrance to the office from the front and there are no buildings around or adjoining the office, the other offices being located on other floors."

There is a see-through window provided with plain glass between the staff room and the INsured''s sitting place. The T.V. was kept in extended cabinet near the ceiling in the INsured''s sitting chamber. Details of Mishap & Extent of Loss: It has been reported that the INsured closed his office as usual at about 6.30 p.m. on 8.10.92 after locking the premises. His staff (Shri Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal) who opened the office on 9.10.92 at about 10 a.m., found the channel gate (collapsible gate) open. The main gate was closed but both the locks of the channel gate and one lock of the main gate were missing and the Kunda of the main gate was broken. On opening the door, he found all the papers, documents, files and books lying haphazardly on the floor and the partition glass of cabin broken. He immediately rang the INsured at his residence. The INsured on reaching the office called the police and informed them the loss of cash amounting to Rs. 40,000,00 as a rough estimate and remaining cash relating to various parties also missing from his Almirah as well as his 14" BPL CTV having been burgled. He also informed the police that exact details of burglary of cash and articles will be supplied by him later.... Our Verification: As indicated in the FIR by the INsured, the broken locks were not available as reportedly they had been taken away by the burglers. However, the damaged portion of the Kunda was verified by us and photographed. There were other signs of violence in the entire office. The glass was damaged. The drawers of the INsured''s working table had been damaged in a bid to forcibly open them. There were also signs of forcible opening of drawers of the Almirah which reportedly contained cash. The accounts books were verified by us as well as by our Chartered Accountant."

FROM the report it is evident that there is only one entrance to the room from the front. At the entrance there is a collapsible steel gate. It is followed by a wooden gate fitted with glass and steel grill. Both the doors were locked from outside. Thus in order to get entry in the room, the thief broke open the locks of the steel gate and the wooden gate as the gates were enough strong and entry in the room could not be secured by breaking them open. It was also not possible to enter the room from any other side as it was situated on the 3rd floor. It is further relevant to point out that the room is situated not in a secluded place but in a commercial area and above a scheduled bank, where an armed Chowkidar must be remaining present round the clock. The money policy was of Rs. 1,00,000/- only, which amount in present times cannot be considered to be such a huge amount for which a strong-room as is constructed by the banks, should be constructed. If one is required to construct that type of strongroom, then there is no idea of taking money insurance policy. It is further noteworthy that the money had been kept in a sufficiently strong receptable, which had been separately locked. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case and the amount for which the policy was taken, we are of the view, that the room in which the money had been kept by the complainant, would be deemed to be a strongroom. The Opposite Party, in order to avoid their liability, has put a narrow interpretation on the words ''strongroom''. These words should be interpreted taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. Consequently, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and they are liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss suffered by him. The second question that arises for determination is, how much amount the complainant is entitled to get from the Opposite Party. The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,07,480.50. The Surveyor has come to the conclusion that he is entitled to total amount of Rs. 79,525/-, which includes Rs. 12,025/- the price of the colour TV etc., which the Opposite Party agreed to pay to the complainant. Therefore we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 79,525/- from the Opposite Party as worked out by the Surveyor.

The third question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to damages, if so, how much ? The complainant has been deprived of the use of the money by the Opposite Party for a long period without any reason. Consequently we allow him interest @ 15% p.a. as damages from 1.1.93, as we think the claim should have been settled within about 10 weeks from the date of lodging the same with the Opposite Party. As the complainant has been given interest at fairly high rate, therefore, we are not inclined to give any further damages to him.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs. 79,525/- say Rs. 79,500/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 1.1.93 till the date of payment within a period of three months, failing which action shall be taken against them u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,500/- Complaint allowed with costs.