Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
Karuvatta Service Cooperative Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Insurance Ombudsman – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner is a Primary Credit Co-operative Society governed by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 Award dated 07.07.2023 of the Insurance Ombudsman.
2. The petitioner-Society had insured itself under Burglary Standard Policy of the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company as per Ext.P1. On the intervening night between 02.09.2020 and 03.09.2020, the accused in CC No.175/2021 broke open the office of the Society, cut open the strong room and committed theft of 4,500 grams of pawned gold articles and of Rs.4,50,000/- cash. The installed CC TV cameras and three Desktop Computers were also stolen by the accused. The petitioner computes the worth of the stolen articles as Rs.2.5 Crores.
3. The jurisdictional police registered Crime No.1084/2020 at Haripad Police Station on 03.09.2020. The police arrested the accused and recovered 3690.39 grams of gold articles and Rs.3,50,000/- cash. The recovered assets are now thondi materials in CC No.175/2021. The petitioner made an insurance claim for Rs.73,07,661/- as per Ext.P2. A Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company made inspections. The Surveyor issued Ext.P3
Insurance companies must assess claims fairly and cannot arbitrarily reduce assessed losses based on unrelated third-party transactions.
The Ombudsman should not reject a claim based on the total value of the stock exceeding the limit if the claim amount is within the prescribed limit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Partnership Firm cannot prefer a complaint under Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998.
(1) Contractual terms – In appreciation of contract of insurance, it is an established legal position that the scope for introduction of fresh terms or interpretation terms to introduce new dimension....
Vague Warrantee clause - Warrantee clause of the policy was vague, as such, the term of the policy is liable to be interpreted in favour of the Insured and the claim could not be denied on the basis ....
Exclusion Clause – Complainant/Respondent is at no fault and the contention of the Appellant that the Complainant/Respondent left the money unattended which falls under the Exclusion Clause hold no w....
Insurance policy – Disallowance of amount deducted by surveyor – Commission has not committed any error in allowing the deduction on account of under insurance condition
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
