1. The claimants before the Commission, respondents herein, approached the Commission seeking compensation from the appellant for loss suffered by them, as a result of malicious activities of certain unknown persons, under a policy of Insurance issued by the appellant. The Commission held that the claim is not entertainable as the same is barred by law. On an appeal, the said decision of the Commission was interfered with when, looking into various documents, including some which were not produced before the Commission, the Division Bench felt that the claim cannot be said to be spurious or belated. However, inasmuch as those documents were not before the Commission, while the Division Bench observed that the reasons assigned by the Commission that the claim is not substantiated by the contemporaneous documents does not appear to be a correct finding, felt that the matter needs re-examination on merit by the Commission. Before the Division Bench, it was contended by the respondent-Insurance Company that the claim having been resulted by reason of terrorist activities does not come within the peril of mischief covered by the policy. The Division Bench answered that question against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document