' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- This appeal has been filed by Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Limited against primarily Messrs Car Chase (appellant) who is a partnership business dealing with old and new vehicles having its permanent showroom in PECHS. An application was filed by respondent No,1 under subsection (1) of section 74-C of Insurance Act, 1938 for claim of Rs,9,63,000 from the insurance company. Respondent No,1 obtained the following two Insurance Policies (relevant for the purpose of this appeal);
(i) Insurance for cash in transit policy availed from 27-5-1990 to 21-5-1991 for a maximum amount of Rs,500,000 in the following eventualities:-- ( 1) Cash Carried Personaly by the Insured's authorized Employee From Insured's Showroom and/or Insured's own residence to any Schedule Banks and vice versa; From insured's showroom to any other showroom and/or any buyer's or seller's residence and/or any schedule Banks and vice versa; ' From office to Habib Bank Ltd. Sir Syed Road Branch and vice versa.
Warranty: "Maximum per carry and any one loss limited to Rs,500.000 (Rupees five hundred thousand only).
Second policy was burglary policy valid from 22-5-1990 to 22-5-1991 for an amount of Rs,9,050,000 for following eventuality:-- On stocks of new and reconditioned vehicles, two Air-conditioners, one color T.V., one water Cooler and one Fridge, whilst stored and/or lying in the insured's showroom and/or the vehicles parked and/or stored in the open space, facing both sides of the showroom known as car chase situated at 86-S, Allama Iqbal Road, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi and declared for insurance as under: --
1. Stock of vehicles (new and reconditioned)Rs,9,000,000
2. 2 A.C., 1 Color T.V., 1 Water cooler and 1 FridgeRs,50,000 Total sum insured Rs,9,050,000 3(sic). On 13-1-1991 applicant stated that he called a stock vehicle from the showroom a Pajero bearing Registration No,IDA-8282 to bring the applicant from his residence bungalow via showroom to deposit cash amount of Rs,538,000 which as stated by applicant that he wanted to deposit in the Bank. While ignition was on, three armed persons appeared at once, switched off Pajero, threw away the driver and fled away with Pajero and the cash in bright daylight on a very busy road. Driver raised cries, eventually F.I.R. Was lodged with police.
4. Since the Insurance Company did not accept claim of applicant, application under subsection
(1) of section 47(c) of the Insurance Act was filed for claim of Rs,963,000; claim of Rs,425,000 for loss of Pajero and Rs,538,000 for loss of cash in transit. Insurance Claims Settlement Board framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether this Honourable Tribunal has jurisdiction to try this application?
(2) Whether the application is signed by an authorized person, if not, what is its effect?
(3) Whether the applicant is entitled to recover the amount from the opponents as claimed in the application under the policies?
(4) Whether the cash of Rs,5,38,000 along with jeep, was taken away by dacoits on 13-1-1991 as alleged in the application?
(5) What should the judgment be?
5. Issue No,1 was not pressed by both sides before the Board. Issue No,2 was decided in favour of applicant before the Board and learned counsel for appellant has not challenged it. The crux Issues are Nos.3 and 4. Learned counsel for appellant made the following submissions:-
(i) That the Insurance Policy (as quoted above) covers only new and reconditioned cars and therefore claim in respect of vehicle did not fall within the ambit of Insurance Policy (relevant is Burglary Policy). As far as cash in transit insurance policy is concerned, learned counsel submitted that it covered upto Rs,500,000 only and appellant stated that they are and have always been ready and willing to pay that amount.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. He also relied upon Messrs New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Enquiry Officer War Risks Insurance and another 1984 PLC 1046 as also Para Nos.670 and 673 Halsburry's Law of England 4th Edition. The said paras. 670 and 673 are as under:- "670. Extent of protection--Movable property of all kinds is liable to attract those minded to break in and steal and this is a risk which is capable of being covered by what is usually called burglary insurance. In ordinary practice the protection given by a burglary insurance policy is not confined to loss by burglary in the strict sense, but extends to loss by analogous crimes such as theft and robbery. A policy covering theft alone, although no doubt obtainable, is likely to be expensive."
' 673. Exceptions in a burglary policy. --The exceptions in a burglary policy are more or less standardized. There is usually an exception excluding losses due to hostilities and similar perils.
Again, there is commonly an exception excluding losses, which are capable of being covered, and which are in practice covered, by some other kind of insurance, such as fire or plate-glass policies in the usual form. Therefore, if a thief breaks a plate-glass window for the purpose of obtaining entry to the premises, the breakage falls within the scope of a plate-glass policy. Most important, perhaps, is the exception excluding liability where the crime causing the loss is committed by, or with the connivance or assistance of, a person belonging to a specified class. The classes usually specified comprise inmates of the insured premises, members of the assured's household or business staff, tenants, lodgers and persons lawfully on the insured premises. To bring the exception into operation, it is unnecessary to prove that an excepted person was the person who actually committed the crime, but the onus of establishing the exception is on the insurers."
7. I have considered submissions made by the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
8. As far as cash in transit insurance is concerned, it is conceded by the appellant that policy was valid on the date of burglary and it covered such instances. He further submitted that maximum amount that could be claimed under that policy is Rs,500,000. It was his submission that, therefore, respondent Nos.1 is not entitled to Rs,538,000 on this account A but was entitled to Rs,500,000 only. I think learned counsel for appellant is correct. When insurance policy itself states that maximum per carry and for any one loss is limited to Rs,500,000, it was not available to the respondent to claim more than Rs,500,000 on account of loss of cash while in transit.
9. As far as burglary police is concerned, it covered vehicles of two kinds in such a situation; (i)
Stock of new and reconditioned Vehicles while stored or lying in the insured's showroom; the vehicle parked or stored in the open space facing both sides of the showroom. In the first category cars must be new or reconditioned one. Any car which is taken by the showroom from one customer to sell to another customer is not new or reconditioned, would not be covered by this.
Obviously, cars which are stored and/or lying in any place or stored at any other place would not be covered by the policy.
10. Second category is where cars are parked and/or stored in the open space facing both sides of the showroom. Here again there are conditions. Though such cars may not be new or reconditioned, it only covers vehicles stored in the open space facing both sides of showrooms.
Word "stored" cannot be lose sight of. A vehicle which is taken may be only for the purpose of driving himself from his house to the bank or his house to showroom is not a vehicle stored or parked and therefore it is not Covered by the Insurance Policy. Whether ignition was on or is of no consequences in this case. Word "Stored" or "Parked" means something more than mere ignition of.
In the vehicle-in-question it is stated in application as under:-- "On 13-1-1991 the Pajero 8282 vehicle reached at residence with driver; at about 10-00 a.m. To bring applicant back to bungalow via showroom to deposit extra cash; started vehicle towards bank via showroom when three armed men appeared at once."
11. Thus, location of vehicle at the time of incident, as pleaded in the application, is that vehicle was at the residence of owner with driver when robbery took place. Insurance policy covered, as I have quoted, above vehicle stored and lying in insured room or vehicle parked or the stored open space facing both side of showroom. When the incident took place the D vehicle was neither in "stored" condition nor in "Parked" condition nor in the showroom in the specified open space. The policy therefore did not cover the vehicle. This appeal is, therefore, accepted; impugned order is set aside and the application filed by petitioner No,1 therefore the Claim Settlement Board Karachi is allowed to the extent of claim of Rs, 500,000.
12. Under the peculiar circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.