The main legal point established is the interpretation of insurance policies and legal provisions related to criminal trespass, theft, unlawful assembly, rioting, and force to determine coverage and compensation under the policies.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - S. 12, S. 17(1)(a)(i) - Sec. 441, 378, 379, 380, 442, 141, 349 - The court discussed the applicability of burglary and riot insurance policies to a claim arising from a mob attack on a construction site. It interpreted the legal provisions related to criminal trespass, theft, unlawful assembly, rioting, and force to determine the coverage under the insurance policies. The court found that the claim was covered by both policies and awarded compensation to the insured.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant, a construction company, filed a complaint against the insurer for not settling an insurance claim arising from a mob attack on their construction site. The complainant sought relief for the claim amount, interest, and mental torture suffered due to the insurer's negligence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the claim was covered by the burglary and riot insurance policies. It awarded the claim amount and compensation to the insured, citing the insurer's negligence in settling the claim within a reasonable time.
Issues: Interpretation of insurance policies, applicability of legal provisions related to criminal trespass, theft, unlawful assembly, rioting, and force, and determination of compensation for insured's loss and mental torture.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the legal provisions to determine the coverage under the insurance policies and found the insurer negligent in settling the claim, leading to the award of compensation to the insured.
Final Decision: The court directed the insurer to settle the claim by paying the insured the claim amount and awarded compensation for the insurer's negligence. The rest of the claim was dismissed.

ORDER

Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—This is a complaint filed by M/s. Ashok Con- struction Company through its partners against the opposite parties under S. 12 read with S. 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) on 29.8.89. Facts as stated in the complaint are these:

2. The complainant is a registered partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, Rajasthan Jaipur in the year 1985. Its partner are (1) Shri Ashok Singhal and (2) Shri Kishore Kumar Singhal, Partners took a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Bank of Rajasthan, opposite party No. 3 (in the complaint it is mentioned as proforma party opposite party No. 3) under hypothecation agreement. It was a condition of the loan that the hypothecated goods are to be duly insured. The Rajasthan Bank proforma party got the hypothecated goods insured for the complainant on 29.12.86 with opposite party No. 2 (National Insurance Co. hereinafter referred to as insured) under two separate cover notes. The details of two cover notes are as follows:

1. Cover note bearing No. 636749 for Rs. 3,00,000/- against risk of loss or damages by burglary. The period of risk for which the cover note was valid was from 29.12.86 to 28.12.87.

2. Cover note No. 43650 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the period 29.12.86 to 28.12.87 against the various risks of damage or loss caused by fire, lightning and R.S.D., M.D., earthquake, flood etc.

3. The complainant has filed both the cover notes marked as Anxs. 1 and 2. It has been alleged by the complainant that on 16.6.87 after 5.00 p.m. till late in the night heavy loss or damage to the hypothecated goods occurred at the insured's site by the members of an outraged and furious crowd of thousand of persons assembled at the site by committing offences of riot and theft/burglary for a reason that mishap had occurred. In the complaint it was stated that the said crowd was not only bent upon taking lives of the complainants namely Ashok Kumar and Kishore Kumar but of all the employees and workers who were employed on that day at that place. The complainant immediately reported loss or damage to the Branch Manager of the insured in writing and apprised him by telephone on 17.6.87. The complainant is said to have submitted a list of goods damaged or taken in theft/burglary with value of each item and total loss or damage so caused to the complainant. The formalities required to be done in this connection were done by the partners of the insured. According to the complainant loss or damage so caused was of Rs. 2,59,710,78. On repeated requests the insurer deputed the surveyor who verified the loss or damage claimed by the complainant from the insured under the cover notes of the policies. Copies of the First Information Report and Final Report (FR) were also submitted, photostat copies have been marked as Anxs. 4 and 5. The complainant has stated that for a period of 26 months from the date of incident, the insured did not settle the claim of the insurer though repeated requests were made by the complainant and the Bank of Rajasthan. The complainant has filed a letter dt: 15.3.89 bearing No. 352103/31/32/86-88/2 stating that the case of the complainant has been registered by the police as theft/burglary in terms of S. 379 of I.P.C. which does not support the view that the loss has been occasioned of the "operation of the perils covered under R.S.D. extension. The complainant apprised the insurer that its claim is not only covered by burglary but also by R.S.D. clause which means damage or loss by rioting. Letters sent by the complainant to the insured were produced as Anxs. 7 to 10 and 11 to 24. According to the complainant it had apprised the insurer that on the claim amount interest shall also be charged. Copy of the interest and loan account was sent to the insurer vide letter of the Bank of Rajasthan informing the complainant that amount due to the Bank inclusive of interest upto 25.3.89 is Rs. 2,72,339/-. On account

Click Here to Read the rest of this document