An insured cannot be denied a claim for portable assets based on police terminology ("missing" vs "theft") or lack of forcible entry, as a pragmatic, contextual interpretation of loss prevails over technical administrative nomenclature in consumer jurisprudence.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 05/08/2026)

Per Dr.Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon’ble Member.

1. This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the consumer protection Act 1986, challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Ld.Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune (‘District Commission’ for short) on dated 25/09/2014 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/152/2008 directing this Appellant to pay an amount of Rs.11,20,888.38/- along with interest 9% from the date of rejection till realization along with cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid within 6 weeks from the date of this Order.

2. Appellant submitted that, the Respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411012. During the course of their Business Operation, they had purchased laptops and insured the same with the Appellant. In total 6 insured laptops were stolen from the possession of Respondent's employee and the Appellant had denied to settle the claim of the Respondent. The Respondent had filed a complaint before Ld. District Commission, Pune wherein the impugned order dated 25/09/2014 was passed in favour of the Respondent.

3. Appellant submitted that the reported losses occurred either due to the goods being left unattended or due to lack of internal security. In Claims 3 to 5, the items went missing from the personal cabins of employees, showing total disregard for their safeguarding obligations and sheer gross negligence on part of the employees of Respondent & Respondent themselves. The employees of Respondent ought to be held liable for such an act of negligence & conduct constitutes a breach of duty under the contract of insurance. The Respondent has not informed about any steps or actions taken against their employees for mishandling, negligence and carelessness while mishandling company property in their custody and possession, which is suspicious. The Respondent has not displayed and has ignored to take any efforts to locate and trace the alleged missing items.

4. Appellant submitted that the Respondent has not provided any satisfactory proof to establish that the losses were due to alleged theft. There is no FIR alleging theft, no evidence of forced entry or tampering and no witness accounts or CCTV footage to support the claim. The mere fact that items are untraceable or "missing" as alleged is not sufficient to invoke liability under a theft or burglary policy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that for an insurer to be held liable, the loss must fall strictly within the policy terms. The failure to register an FIR under theft provisions reflects absence of dishonest intention or wrongful taking. In absence of this, the claim stands unsupported.

5. Appellant submitted that, if an article is simply reported "missing," it typically implies loss, misplacement, or disappearance without any proof of criminal intent or wrongful taking. Insurance policies covering "theft" requires demonstration of wrongful taking back by corroborative evidence.

6. Appellant relied on the judgment of Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chander Deep Arora. In such circumstances, being aggrieved, present appeal is filed by the appellant on the following grounds :-

 The impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is not based on material facts and is therefore patently illegal, bad in law, and contrary to