NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Complainant
versus
M/s. Nayyar Electronic World – Opp. Party
First Appeal No.174 of 2017
[Against the order dated 02.11.2016 passed in CC No 131/2014 by the State Commission, Delhi]
Decided on 10.9.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 – Insurance – Burglary BP Policy – Theft / burglary at insured premises – Repudiation of claim on the ground of delay – State Commission allowed complaint and directed appellant to pay Rs.15,31,848.72/- with 12% interest along with Rs.50,000/- for litigation expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation – Insurer should not repudiate claim of insured merely on ground of short delay – Claim of respondent cannot not be repudiated merely for non-production of damaged locks – However, respondent did not place on record even minimum evidence to establish that use of force preceded entry in premises – There is no evidence whether culprits or accused were put to trial for burglary or house breaking – Act complained of by respondent which causes loss are not falling within definition in policy – Impugned order passed by State Commission is based on conjectures and surmises and without proper application of law – Impugned order set aside and consumer complaint dismissed. (Paras 5.1, 11.7, 12.1, 13 and 14)
Result: Consumer complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Presiding Member—Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the respondent/the complainant/M/s. Nayyar Electronic World (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) was engaged in business of selling electrical appliances. The respondent for financial security was insuring its shop and the stocks/property against various risks and in particular for burglary and allied perils. The respondent renewed the insurance policy/cover with the opposite party/United India Assurance Company Limited/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) for a period of one year commencing from 14.08.2010 to 13.08.2011 for Rs.42,50,000/- which covered stocks of electronic goods, furniture, fixtures, and fittings. The respondent was not supplied with the policy and its terms and conditions and when the respondent approached the appellant, after loss then the respondent was provided with a computerized document during process of lodging the claim and thereafter the respondent came to know about insurance policy bearing no 221600/46/10/04/00000440.
1.1 A theft/burglary took place at the insured premises of the respondent in the night of 22/23.04.2011. The respondent reported this incident at Police Station Maurya Enclave and a FIR bearing no 114 of 2011 under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. The respondent also intimated about said incident to the appellant. The appellant was requested to register claim of the respondent and to issue necessary claim form. The respondent submitted the claim form along with necessary documents on 06.05.2011. The respondent also gathered the estimate immediately after the burglary and valued the stolen property at Rs.22,50,048/-. The appellant did not take any action till 16.05.2011 then the respondent sent a reminder dated 16.05.2011. The appellant after receipt of reminder appointed M/s K.D. Kohli & Company as surveyor to carry out necessary survey and assess the losses. The surveyor visited the affected site on 19.05.2011 where surveyor took photographs and collected necessary documents. The surveyor also sent a letter dated 20.05.2011 for further documents. The surveyor also physically inspected the available material and made further inquiries. The respondent on 26.05.2011 provided information and documents sought to be furnished vide letter dated 20.05.2011. The surveyor instead of assessing loss called further documents which were provided on 14.08,2011 and 17.08.2011. The surveyor did not submit report till August, 2012 and did not make assessment of loss. The appellant appointed another surveyor/investigator namely J. B. Sharma who visited the shop of the respondent but J. P. Sharma did not submit the report. The respondent vide letter dated 07.03.2013 again requested the appellant to process the claim as about two years have been passed. The appellant appointed another surveyor namely Alka Gupta to do survey of the stolen property who visited the site and called for certain documents which were provided by the respondent vide letters dated 15.05.2013 and 27.06:2013. The respondent also provided all necessary documents to the appellant and surveyors to justify its claim of Rs.22.50 lacs. The respondent also submitted letter of subrogation which was prepared in November, 2011. The respondent also sent letter dated 26.10.2013 to the regional office of the appellant and to other authorities.
1.2 The appellant vide letter dated 25.10.2013 has rejected claim of the respondent on the ground that cause of loss i.e. burglary and house breaking is not established and the claim is not payable within the scope of insurance policy. The respondent had paid full premium and claim was of Rs.22,55,048/-. The respondent being aggrieved filed the present consumer complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) titled as M/s Nayyar Electronic World V United India Insurance Company Limited bearing no 131/
National Insurance Company vs. Kulwant Singh
Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal
Insurer should not repudiate claim of insured merely on ground of short delay.
Underinsurance assessed by Surveyor is arbitrary.
(1) Repudiation - Repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.(2) Exclusion clause - By citing the fact, the complainant stated that ....
The court emphasized timely settlement of insurance claims and the reliance on surveyor assessments despite the insurer's delays.
Exclusion Clause – Exclusion Clause No. 4 cannot be pressed into service to legally suspect the impugned order as infirm on that ground.
1) Neither employees carrying the gold took any step for its recovery after theft nor did the petitioner, who was informed on telephone asked them to take any step for recovery of the theft good; thu....
IMPORATNT POINT Appointment of Surveyor – Insured can also appoint a Surveyor or loss accessor.
Insurance claims must adhere strictly to policy conditions regarding prompt notification of incidents; failure to act can lead to claim repudiation.
1) Mere reading shows that Violation of Policy Conditions written in surveyor’s report are patently ambiguous and incoherent.2) Nothing prevented the insurance co.’s surveyor to confirm from relevant....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.