Delhi

New Delhi

CC/394/2014

Anshu Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Oriental Insurance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Mar 2020

ORDER

 

 

                           CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                          (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                        ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                    NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./394/2014                                        Dated:

         In the matter of:

          Sh. Anshu Aggarwal,

          Proprietor,

           Delhi Transfer Products,

          25/152, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07.

…… Complainant

 

Versus

The Oriental InsuranceCompany Ltd.,

Regional Office No. 1,

Hansalaya Building,

           10^th Floor, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

 

……. Opposite party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant obtained a  policy for his factory for the purpose of its financial security and against various risks particularly burglary and allied perils.  The complainant renewed the policy with the OP, the required insurance cover for the period of one year from 13.10.2011 to 12.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.32,17,350/- covering stocks in trade pertaining to business or trades.  In response, OP sent a computer sized policy of insurance consisting of only 2 pages bearing No.212200/48/2012/1649 to the complainant without any terms and conditions.  Moreover, OP Co. never supplied the  same  at any point of time before or even after the loss.  On 11/12.10.2012 theft tookplace  in the aforesaid premises and intimation regarding the theft of the insured articles was given to the local police i.e. Bhalaswa Diary, police station and the FIR No.191 of u/s 380/2012 was registered.  A report  of theft along with list of articles specifically mentioned in the FIR as well as Claim form along with all the documents were sent to the OP Insurance Co. for the reimbursement  of loss for a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-.  OP Co. appointed M/s Sanjay Dwivedi  & Associates as Surveyor to assess the loss of the complainant and the surveyor inspected the site but the surveyor failed to submit his report till December 2013.  The complainant reminded number of times to the OP and its surveyors for settlement of claim of the complainant but nothing was done.

2.     On 28.3.2014, the complainant received a registered letter from the OP in which the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP Co. on the  plea that the cause of loss i.e. FIR has been registered u/s 380 of IPC which talks about theft but the policy in question is a Burglary standard insurance policy and theft is not covered under the said policy. On 15.4.2014,  the complainant wrote a letter and requested the OP to provide the report of surveyor and re-consider its decision but no response was received from the OP.  This act of OP amounts to deficiency in services on its part, hence this complaint.

3.     Complaint has been contested by OP. OP  has not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred above along with its terms and conditions. OP has stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part. It is  stated that the said policy covered the Burglary not the theft and the present complaint is in respect of theft took place in the factory of complainant as admitted in the complaint,  as well as in the FIR and before the court of MM, therefore, the present complaint is  not maintainable.  It is further submitted that after receipt of intimation of theft, Investigator Om Associates was appointed, who submitted its report with  remarks  that ”the competent authority may consider the claim under  the terms and conditions.  The OP Co. also appointed the surveyor, who assessed the net loss for a sum of Rs.3,26,610/- subject to admission of liability by the insurers and terms and conditions, limitation and warranties of the policy.   It is further submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the hon’ble forum as there was no burglary took place and accordingly, as per the statement of complainant, the police officials have registered the case u/s 380 IPC as admittedly theft took place in the factory of the complainant, hence the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP Co.  It is further submitted that the present complaint is devoid of merit and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

4.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     Some facts are not disputed by the parties such as the Insurance policy, and theft occurred.  Admittedly the complainant informed the OP about the incident of burglary and the OP appointed the surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of  Rs.3,26,610/- but  the claim of the complainant was repudiated  by the OP Insurance Co. under the pretext that the said policy covered the Burglary not the theft and the present complaint is in respect of theft took place in the factory of complainant. 

7.     Perusal of the policy documents shows that the present policy pertains to Burglary and House Breaking Policy. The OP Co. is relying upon the operative clause reproduced as under:

(a)    Any loss or damage to property or any part thereof whilst contained in the premises described in the Schedule hereto due to Burglary or House-breaking (theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry of and/ or exit from the premises and Hold-up.

(b)    Damage caused to the premises to be made good by the insured resulting from burglary and/or housebreaking or any attempt threat any time during the period of insurance.

8.     In common parlance burglary is understood as theft.  We have not been told if there was any separate policy for theft.  If we draw our knowledge as to what has happened in normal course of events, it can be safely assumed that  the complainant asked for the insurance cover for theft and the insurance co. did insure the property against theft by giving the policy name Burglary and House Breaking.  Question is what does a common-man understand by the terms Burglary when he goes for Insurance to cover the case of theft? We don’t have to go for any legal terminology of the word or strict meaning of the term in English Dictionary.  Even this Dictionaries give the different meaning to the term Burglary.  If we refer to Concise Oxford Dictionary Burglary defined as “Illegal Entry into a building with intent to commit a crime such as theft”.    Whereas in the new webster’s dictionary burglary is the crime of breaking into the house of another at night with felonious intend.  

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that Burglary is nothing but the illegal entry in the premises with the intention to steal something.  In the present case also, on an intervening night of 21/22.10.2012, at around 2.30 a.m., 6-7 persons entered into insured premises after jumping the factory wall  and overpowered the chowkidar on gun point. They staying the factory for 2-3 hours and stolen the insured articles.  This incidence squarely covered with the definition of Burglary as well as under operative clause-a which says that Any loss or damage to property or any part thereof whilst contained in the premises described in the Schedule hereto due to Burglary or House-breaking (theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry of and/ or exit from the premises and Hold-up as there is a theft accompanied with forcible and violent entry.

10.    Perusal of the file shows that the  OP Insurance Co. has placed on record the report of the  surveyor, who is independent person appointed by IRDA to investigate and assess the loss suffered by insured. Moreover, in the present case, the complainant has not challenged the surveyor report.  Complainant has failed to place on record any documents justifying the claim of Rs.11,00,000/-. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the actual loss suffered by the complainant is Rs.3,26,610/-. Our view find support from the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission  In PAALM EATABLE LTD. VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. IV(2004) CPJ 22(NC)  in which it was held that

“Surveyor’s report an important document, sufficient reasons must be shown to reject it or reasons for not accepting it”.

 

11.    In view of the above discussion and the judgement cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the repudiation of claim of the complainant was unjustified and arbitrarily which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP Insurance Co.  We, therefore, direct the OP Insurance Co.  as under:

 

i).     Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,26,610/-  along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 22.5.2014 till its realization.

ii)      Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and mental agony suffered by him which will also include  litigation cost . 

            

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount.

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 06/03/2020. 

                                                          

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER