Back
THE UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President;
Mr. Sada Nand & Mrs. P. Ojha, Members
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
CHANDGOTHIA BROS —Respondent
Appeal Case No. 68 of 1996 — Decided on 3.3.1997
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate.
The central legal point established is the interpretation of the occurrence as burglary under the insurance policy and the calculation of interest payment period.
Headnote:
Insurance - Burglary Claim - Interpretation of Insurance Policy
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's stocks were insured for Rs. 18 lacs with an insurance company. A burglary occurred, and a claim for Rs. 4,175.76 was repudiated. The District Forum ordered the payment of the claim amount with interest, which was challenged in the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the findings of the District Forum, stating that the occurrence constituted a burglary covered by the insurance policy. It modified the interest payment period but upheld the decision to pay the claim amount.
Issues: Interpretation of the occurrence as burglary under the insurance policy, and the calculation of interest payment period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the occurrence as burglary covered by the insurance policy and modified the interest payment period based on reasonableness.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, affirming the District Forum's decision with a modification in the interest payment period.
Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President — Stocks of automobiles, spare parts, accessories, machine equipments and tools, etc. belonging to the complainant were insured to the extent of Rs. 18 lacs with M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited for the period 11.5.93 to 10.5.94. It was on 6.8.93 that the burglary at the permises of the complainant took place and a claim for Rs. 4,175.76 was made, but it was repudiated. As a consequence of the complaint instituted by M/s. Chandgothia Brothers, Industrial Area, Panchkula, the District Forum ordered on 11.9.96 that a sum of Rs. 4,175.76 along with interest @ 18% p.a. shall be payable w.e.f. 6.5.93. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted.
2. On behalf of the appellant, it has been stressed that no force of any kind was used and the occurrence in question could not be considered as burglary covered by the insurance policy. It is always the skill and choice of the culprit where and in what manner he was to operate. Even if there was a boundary wall as in this case it was not improbable that removal of tools and equipment did take place. In para 5 of the burglary claim form (Annexure C4), there is a specific mention that the occurrence was reported to SHO of the Industrial Area, Panchkula, on 6.8.93. The premises were insured for a sum of Rs. 18 lacs and there was no good ground for repudiating the claim for Rs. 4,175.76. It constituted deficiency.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has next argued that the interest has been allowed w.e.f. 6.5.93 whereas the occurrence took place on 6.8.93. This appears to be a typographical error. At the same time, we agree that usually a period of three months is considered reasonable for repudiation. Thus, the interest @ 18% p.a. shall be payable w.e.f. 6.11.93 and not from 6.5.93 till realisation. With this modification, the findings arrived at by the District Forum are affirmed and the appeal stands disposed of.
4. Announced. Copies of order be sent to the parties free of charges.
Appeal disposed of.
