Skip to main content

Oriental Insurance Company to pay Rs 45,000 in burglary case

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd has been asked by the Delhi State Consumer Commission to pay Rs 45,000 to a business firm, which was insured with it, for the loss suffered in a burglary.

New Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising its judicial member S A Siddiqui, asked the insurance company to pay the amount, which also included Rs 15,000 compensation, to city-based Brisk Infotec Solutions, while dismissing the review petition filed against a district consumer forum's order.

The insurance company had moved the state commission challenging the forum's order directing it to pay the money for loss due to burglary in the firm's office.

The insurance company had earlier denied the claim while raising objections over the burglary.

While upholding the forum's order, the commission said, "This (the incident) is a clear-cut case of forcible entry in premises which is termed as burglary. Loss due to burglary is an insured peril under the subject policy and not under any exclusions, hence underwriters are liable to indemnify insured as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy."

The commission also noted that the drawer of the office was found broken and, thereafter, cash was stolen. It added that the forum's order did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and deserved to be maintained.

The firm had earlier told the forum that it had taken a policy from the insurance company in May 2008 which covered the risk of theft of cash as well as goods and machinery among other perils.

In March 2009, a burglary took place in its office when some person trespassed and broke open the doors and Rs 1.23 lakh cash was stolen. Thereafter, the firm lodged a claim with the insurance company which was repudiated it.

The firm filed a complaint with the forum for deficiency of service on part of the insurance company.

The insurance company, however, submitted that the claim was rejected on the ground that under the terms and conditions of the policy, only loss of cash out of business hours was covered that too secured in a locked safe or locked strong room in the insurer's premises.

The district forum, however, had directed the insurance company to pay Rs 45,000 to the firm. Aggrieved by this, the insurance company filed appeal before the state commission.

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-oriental-insurance-company-to-pay-rs-45000-in-burglary-case-2016812

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil