Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Honble Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President; Mr. I.D. Bali &
Mrs. Krishana Tandon, Members
FARM FRESH FOODS PRIVATE LTD.—Complainant
versus
BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Respondent
Original Complaint No. 9 of 1993—Decided on 12.6.1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Ms. Jyotsna Rewal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajeev Mehta, Advocate.
The definition of 'house breaking or burglary' in an insurance policy requires felonious entry of the premises by violent forcible means, and the premises where the insured articles are kept must be covered under the policy.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - BURGLARY - HOUSE BREAKING - DEFINITION - INSURANCE POLICY - INTERPRETATION - FELONIOUS ENTRY - VIOLENT FORCIBLE MEANS - PREMISES OF THE FACTORY - FENCING - COVERAGE UNDER THE POLICY - REPUDIATION OF CLAIM - JUSTIFICATION - COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a private limited company, claimed damages for loss suffered due to burglary and mental agony caused by the uncooperative attitude of the insurance company. The insurance company repudiated the claim, stating that no burglary occurred and the policy was not in force at the relevant time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of felonious entry or violent forcible means used during the alleged burglary. The articles were kept in a vacant space fenced and not in the store room, and there was no evidence of the fencing being broken. Therefore, the case did not fall under the definition of 'burglary' and was not covered under the terms of the insurance policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the alleged burglary fell within the definition of 'house breaking or burglary' as defined in the insurance policy. 2. Whether the premises where the articles were kept were covered under the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'house breaking or burglary' in the insurance policy and held that it required felonious entry of the premises by violent forcible means. Since there was no evidence of such entry, the case did not fall under the definition of 'burglary'. Additionally, the court found that the articles were kept in a vacant space fenced and not in the store room, and there was no evidence of the fencing being broken. Therefore, the premises where the articles were kept were not covered under the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.
Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—By this complaint, the complainant has claimed dam ages for the loss suffered by the complainant amounting to Rs. 1,16,400/- on account of burglary and also damages to the tune of Rs. 50.000/- on account of mental agony, undue harassment and un-co-operative attitude of the opposite party and also interest @ 18% per annum from 24th July, 1992 till the amount is paid to him alongwith costs.
2. The brief relevant facts set-up by the complainant are that the complainant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of R.C.C. Pipes, P.C.C. Poles and other concrete products and located at Bata Mandi, Teh. Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. and that the complainant vide Insurance Cover bearing No. 23242/BP/93/00039 valid from 12.6.1992 to 11.6.1993, had insured its stocks of cement bags, steel wire, cement poles, cement pipes, finished/semi-finished C.I. flanges, C.I. Castings and accessories and machinery used for concrete works for a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs and the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs. 1,900/- as premium.
3. According to the complainant, during the period when the insurance policy was in force a burglary took place in the factory premises on 24.7.1992 and it was detected by one Shri Bal Giri Gugwad, Manager and considerable loss was suffered by the complainant in respect of certain items which have been given in Para 6 of the complaint. Shri Bal Giri, Manager, who detected the burglary in the factory premises reported the loss for a sum of Rs. 1,16,400/- and F.I.R. was also lodged with the police and claim was also preferred with the Insurance Company.
4. However, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the Insurance Company arbitrarily and the complainant had been forced to file the present complaint.
5. The allegations of the complainant had been repudiated by the Insurance Company and according to them no burglary or theft was committed of the insured goods and in the specified premises of the factory and the complainant has coined a false story and lodged a false F.I.R. in the police in order to get a claim wrongfully from the Insurance Company. Furthermore, the insurance policy came into force only on 12.6.1992 and it did not cover the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant as according to the respondent-Insurance Company, the policy was not in force at the relevant time.
6. Condition No. 1 of the insurance policy which defines "House breaking or burglary" is relevant and may be reproduced below :
(a) Theft of property from the premises described in the Schedule to this policy following upon felonious entry of the said premises by violent forcible means, or
(b) Theft by a person in the premises who subsequently breaks out by violent and forcible means.
7. Miss Jyotsna Rewal, learned Counsel for the complainant has strongly contended that the risk of burglary is squarely covered under the terms of the insurance policy which is evident from the evidence produced in the form of affidavits by the complainant. According to her various stolen articles weighing as much as 110 kgs. or so could not have been stolen from the premises without the use of force.
8. We have considered such submissions and perused the record and in our opinion there is no force in such submissions.
9. One Mrs. Subodh Abbhi, Managing Director of the complainant has filed an affidavit dated 9.9.1993 and in paragraph 2 he has stated that the cement bags and other small articles were kept in store room. The R.C.C. Cement pipes, finished/semi finished, flanges, castings and machinery were kept in the premises of the factory in vacant space, which is fenced. Such articles could not be kept in store rooms.
10. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit it has been shown that the weight of each piece of missing article (mould) varies from 40 kgs. to 110 kgs. etc. This affidavit is also supported by an affidavit on one Shri Balgiri Kenchappa Gugwad, the Manager of the Company. According to him v
