Ins claim for burgalary
dev kapoor
(Querist) 26 April 2012
This query is : Resolved
Hi Friends,
A caller sought my advice but I am not sure.He had obtained an insurance policy against burgalry for his godown.One day when he visited his godown he found 'out of the two locks placed on the main gate/door of the store building,one was missing & other hanging with latch but opened.FIR lodged ended in a 'final police report' closing the case and the ins.co repudiated the claim.He filed a complaint before Dist Forum but it is argued on behalf of insurance com that 'unless there is forcible & violennt act' BURGALRY in insurance is not made out as finding LOCKS broken opened or one lock missing does not prove any such act.His advocate argues that no lock can be broken onened unless 'force is applied on it'.But the Court seeks Judgments etc.?
Will anybody help me guide my friend approptiately?What is the relevant law/judgments on this subjects & how to refer to ?
Regards
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 26 April 2012
Please search in www.indiankanoon.org
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 26 April 2012
www.indiankanoon.org
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
ajay sethi
(Expert) 26 April 2012
Bhubneshwar Ombudsman Centre
Case No. I.O.O./BBSR/11 – 002-0115
Sri Laxmidhar Nayak
Vs.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Award Dated 21.4.2006
Insured complainant’s Shop Keeper’s claim has been repudiated by the insurer on the
ground that there was no visible violent entry in to the insured premises by the burglars
at the time of accident.
During hearing of this complaint Complainant was absent and insurer’s representative
submitted a copy of notice issued by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Puri for
same subject matter vide case No: 125 of 2005.
Hon’ble Ombudsman rejected this complaint as per rule 13 (3) © of RPG Rules ,199
ajay sethi
(Expert) 26 April 2012
Bhubneshwar Ombudsman Centre
Case No. I.O.O./BBSR/11 – 003-0091
Sri Kedar Nath Das
Vs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Award dated 22.6.2006
Insured complainant obtained a Shop Keepers Insurance for his grocery stocks from
National Insurance Co. Ltd . During the super cyclone his shop was burgled by the
miscreants. Complainant lodged the claim for compensation of Rs 48,000. Insurer
repudiated the claim as the complainant failed to submit the F.I.R. Copy and Police
Final report.
During the Hearing complainant submitted the FIR Copy and Police Final report.
Insurer’s representative stated that loss is coming under policy exception as it relates
to super cyclone.
Hon’ble Ombudsman set aside repudiation on the ground that contention of insurer is
erroneous in as much as burglary can not be regarded as a natural calamities.
Other argument of insurer does not hold good as the final police report stated lock of
the shop was broke opened. Complainant is also directed to submit the stock register ,
sales register and purchase memos within seven days of hearing to the insurer for
assessment of loss.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 26 April 2012
Chandigarh Ombudsman Centre
Case No. GIC/25/OIC/11/07
Jatinder Singh
Vs
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Award Dated 24.7.06
Facts : Jatinder Singh had taken a burglary policy for Solar water pumping system
having 24 SPV modules for the period 18.7.03 to 17.4.04 for sum insured of Rs. 3.15
lakh. Seven of these were stolen during the night intervening 23/24.3.04. The system
was installed through Punjab Energy Development Agency, Chandigarh for irrigating
his fields in village Mana Singh Walla, Ferozepur. It was stated that the system is
surrounded by a boundary wall and an entry gate. Some unknown persons broke the
lock and forcibly entered the premises on the fateful night and stole sevenmodules. He filed an FIR with police station Ghall Khurd and insurer’s office at
Ferozepur was duly informed. Claim documents including claim form and untraceable
report were duly submitted. However claim was repudiated on 9.5.05 on the ground
that the report of the investigator revealed that theft was not preceded by use of force
or violence as per terms of the policy. It was contended that it was a case of forcible
entry as gate lock was broken open by miscreants. It was urged that the insurance
company grossly violated the contract and deprived him of legitimate claim on lame
excuses.
Findings : The matter was investigated and it was found that it was a case of theft without any
forcible entry or exit. In this connection condition no. 1 of the policy was cited which defines burglary as
“theft of property from the premises described in the Schedule to the policy following upon felonious
entry of the said premises by violent, forcible means or theft by a person in the premises who
subsequently breaks out by violent and forcible means”.
The perusal of the investigation report reveals that the investigator held the loss to be
genuine. Besides, the statements of respectables of the village recorded by him
corroborated the version given by the complainant. However he pointed out that
boundary wall was only 3 ft high which should have been 6ft high. The investigator
further stated that the insured had not got fitted barbed wire to protect entry and no
person was engaged for watch and ward. These matters that should have been taken
into consideration at the time of underwriting. The lock was broken open as per FIR
and the representative of the insurer had nothing to counter it. The important precondition
for admissibility of claim under this policy, that of use of force is satisfied,
since the entry was made by breaking open the lock of the gate. Therefore, orderedclaim be settled
dev kapoor
(Querist) 26 April 2012
I am greatful to M/S Shonee Kappor & Deepak Nair for suggesting the populr site indiankanoon.org.
But I extend my heartfelt thanks to Mr.Ajay Sethin for his painstaking & replyin/guiding in true spirit of 'lawyers club india'.Mr.Sethi Plz ack my regards & comliment as well.I wish you to keep up the true-spirit in true-perspectives.
dev kapoor
(Querist) 26 April 2012
But Mr. Sethi & all friends here, I am tempted to add to what Mr Sethi has done as gratis service on this forum.
In fact since the caller was so confused by the expressions received by him the court that he persistly called me.During my extensib=ve search I have laid had on the SC star judgment of 2004 titled "United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs M/S.Harchand Rai Chandan Lal",which leaves nothing dubious nor anything to interpret.In any case,it appears National Commission felt that in some Consumer Fora the star judgment was not being applied in true import so they clarified the law laid in Harchand Rai Chandan's case in a recent judgment titled "New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs. M/s Mono Industries" decided on 10th March 2008 by a`Bench headed by Justice M B Shah.Please take stock of these judgments too vis -a-vis Ombudsman's supra judgment.
Regards.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 27 April 2012
The author has inspired me as much as Mr.Sethi.
