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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

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...