Skip to main content

Is Lunch break part of 'business hour' ? - Maybe, according to NCDRC

Ruling that lunch break will be included in business hours unless specifically stated otherwise in the policy, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed an insurance company to pay Rs 10.5 lakh to a Bhayander-based jeweller.

Panchsheel Jewellers had bought an insurance policy from the New India Assurance Company for Rs 21.51 lakh. The policy covered all the jewellery and cash in the shop including those at the display window. The theft took place in the shop premises on 8.5.2003 during the lunch hours.  Gold ornaments allegedly worth over Rs.21 lakhs and some cash were stolen.

The jeweller deposed before the commission that the business hours are from 10.00 to 10.00 p.m. so also according to normal business practice lunch hours are the part of working hours of business.  About the gold ornaments kept in the showcase it is not possible every time, when the shop is closed for lunch time during business hours, to keep the ornaments again in the locker, unless during the night time.   The ornaments were intact in the shop which were properly and diligently locked.

According to the insurer, as per the survey report it can be observed that on 08.05.2003 at 1.30 pm after noon the shop was closed locking the main gate and the shutter.  The gold ornaments displayed in the showcase were being kept as it is i.e. in the show case and were not kept back in the locker.  The warranty applicable as per the policy states that warranted that all property including cash currency notes while at the premises specified in the schedule of the policy shall be secured in the locked safe of standard make at all time out of business hours.  In view of the above the claim preferred by the complainant falls under exclusion 12 of jewellers block insurance policy and hence the same is not admissible.

District Forum rejected the contention of the OP/insurance company that the lunch hours are to be excluded from the business hours.  The State Commission has agreed with the view taken by the District Forum. The matter finally came before the National Commission (NCDRC)

The NCDRC agreed with the argument of the insurance company that the Supreme Court has clearly stated that that the terms of an insurance policy have to be strictly construed and no exception or relaxation can be made while interpreting the same.

The NCDRC held that "However, the problem arises from the interpretation given by the revision petitioner to the same.  We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner/New India Assurance Company, who forcefully argued that under the terms of the policy all property, including cash at the scheduled premises, should necessarily be secured in locked safe,  at all times out of business hours.  Loss or damage to property in window display after business hours is not covered. 

It was further argued that during lunch time, if the shop is kept open for attending to customers and if the staff go out for lunch by turns, then the jewellery need not be shifted into the safe. But in the present case, considering the duration for which the shop was closed for lunch hours, the jewelery should have been shifted into the safe. A similar argument is raised in the revision petition also.  However, neither the revision petition nor the counsel point to any provision in the policy, which would permit such an interpretation of the lunch hours.  In its absence, their argument amounts to bringing a stipulation into the policy which is not expressly contained in it. We therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting this contention of the revision petitioner."

So, the insurance company's claim was rejected because the policy did not specifically mention lunch breaks. Now, for some reason, the decisions of the commissions always feel like an anti-climax. Normally, one should expect a proper explanation of any judgments/order but that rarely happens here. Even the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that decisions should be clearly explained.

Now, this decision is correct because as per the Shop and Establishment Act, there has to be at least half hour break after every 5 hours. So, the break in the above matter should be part of the working hours.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...