A steel almirah with a single lever lock cannot be treated as a 'locked safe'

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Mehta Jewellers, claim lodged by the jewellers after burglary in their shop. The insurer referred to the policy which stated said, "Warranted that all property including cash and currency notes whilst at the premises specified in the schedule shall be secured in locked safe of standard make at all times out of business hours" and in view of the policy term, the claim was  repudiated by the insurer  on the ground that the 'ornaments in the shop at the material time of burglary were kept in a steel safe of local make and not in burglar resistant safe'. 

The repudiation of claim of the complainant was intimated after a gap of two years from the incident. Aggrieved, the complaint filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the surveyor has clearly reported that the jewellery was kept in an almirah with single lever.  Even in the FIR the complainant has mentioned that he closed the jewellery and other documents in the iron cupboard, which is not a "locked safe".  Thus, it is clear that the complainant himself is admitting that jewellery was not secured in a 'locked safe' of standard make.  

The State Commission has observed that a burglar proof safe is not a reality and has not been defined in the policy. Moreover, standard make is also not defined in the policy and therefore, the State Commission has allowed the insurance claim on the basis that the Insurance Company or the agent never objected to the steel almirah being used by the complainant as safe.  

Learned counsel submitted that locked safe of standard makes are known to every jeweller and jewellery is to be kept in such locked safe.  Clearly, steel almirah with single lever cannot be treated as safe.  Obviously, it is easier to break almirah of a single lever lock than to break a safe.

The counsel referred to Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Samayanallur Primary Agricultural Coop. Bank, M/s. Karnataka Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s. United India Assurance Company Ltd. &Anr., National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Kumar Aggarwal, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Orient Treasures Private Limited, all of which discussed the issue of 'safe' in relation to valuable items.

The NCDRC referring to judgments in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs.Chandmull Jain, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cherian II, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, held that it is clear that in the present case the warranty is to be treated in the terms it is given in the policy.  It is clearly stated that during non business hours all the cash and jewellery will be secured in a locked safe of standard make.  Even if one leaves the condition of standard make, which is vague and not defined in the policy, one has to take into consideration that articles are required to be secured in a locked safe.  As the word 'safe' is not defined, one has to take the help from other sources.  It has already been seen that as per Webster Dictionary, the meaning of safe is "a strong fireproof cabinet with a complex lock".  Clearly in a simple steel almirah the lock is not complex and the almirah can very well be opened by widening the space between doors.  It is also clear that the articles kept in other space than the space described in the policy are not to be considered while deciding the claim as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Orient Treasures Private Limited (supra).  Even in the common parlance, a normal steel alimirah is not referred as 'safe' and a 'safe' is understood to be a cabinet where valuables are safe as it cannot be opened without key.