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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more