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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/

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...