Skip to main content

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. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more