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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...