ASHOK KUMAR BRAROO vs National Insurance Co. Ltd

-TINE complainant had insured his household goods to the tune of Rs. 45,000/ - lying in his house situated at Channapora, Srinagar. The insurance cover was valid for the period between 2.3.1991 and 1.3.1992. Due to militancy he had to migrate from the Valley and on 15th September, 1991 in a militancy related operation his household goods were taken and his house was ransacked. He made a report to the police concerned, which is to the effect that on visiting his house he found the locks and the doors open and besides damage to his house nothing was left in his house. He had also reported that the damage had been done even to his sanitary bear and water taps. FIR was registered under Section 457 and 390, RPC which was subsequently added by Section 3 of the Terrorist Act as evidenced by the letter of the SP and the case was closed as not traced.

NOW it is the admitted case of the parties that apart from the fire insurance the policy was also covering the malicious damage including terrorist cover. The only defence set up by the opposite party is that the terms and conditions of the policy were not valid for theft and burglary and after seeking an information from a private investigating agency namely Dogra Placement and Security. It has come to the conclusion that the Company has no liability and therefore it has been declared as No Claim. Now after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we may at once point out that there is no need for us to refer to the evidence adduced by the complainant and this we are doing simply for the simple reason that there is no dispute about the damage having been caused and there is no issue involved excepting the fact as to whether on the facts and circumstances of this case the insurance covers the risk for which the claim has been made. In this connection the entire reliance by the OP is placed on the testimony of Shri Jaswant Singh, a retired DIG who has proved the report made by him when his opinion was sought by the OP. The opinion tendered by him is that the facts of the case contained in the FIR only disclose a case in respect of breaking and theft and do not fall in the category of offences under TADA. Thus the testimony tendered by him is in the nature of opinion. The Insurance Company seems to have taken above and rejected the claim. It is very sad that the Insurance Company is labouring under the impression that opinions are binding on us also. What is required is that in the first place the Insurance Company should have independently applied its mind to the case which in fact has not been done. If the legal opinion was required then the proper course was to seek opinion from some highly placed and recognised legal luminary. It is a common knowledge that for their own purpose the Insurance Companies are approaching some private agencies who are tendering opinion against payment cies who are tendering opinion against payment of fees. Such opinions are always suspecting in the eyes of law because they are tendered by people who are neither experts in the field nor are they tendering such opinion gratis. In any case it has no value excepting that of an opinion evidenced and while dealing with such type of evidence no adjudicating authority can close its eyes to the facts of the case.

In the present case the contents of the FIR clearly goes to show that the damage has taken place during the period when the insurgency in the Valley was on its peak. The complainant had migrated from the place. In the state of this Gun Culture where everybody was fleeing for safety anything was possible at any moment on day and night. The fact shows that it is not a case of normal theft or burglary which usually take place when the people are fast asleeping their houses and the thieves make their entry either by breaking open the house or somehow succeed in removing the goods from somebody''s possession. In a situation like this as matter of fact there is no need for criminals to do things of this nature in the stealth of darkness. The gun yielding people have been doing it open in the broad day light and there is no question of offering any resistance to it. The facts mentioned in the application which was made by the complainant to the police clearly show that it is not a case of normal theft or burglary but is a case of forcible removal of goods of the house and also causing damage to the house including sanitary bear etc. Thieves or burglars have no time for all these things. They just make entry into house and steal the goods before anybody wakes in the house. In this state of things it is unfair to argue that the goods were left behind uncared. Shri Braroo when asked as to what type of care he expects the insured to take under the circumstances has flattered and rightly so. There could not be any answer to the question in the state of things to which the Valley has been passing. It was in these circumstances that the case was not treated as a simple case of burglary or theft and independent state investigating agency of the rank of Superintendent of Police found it to be a case covered by the provisions of TADA. Mr. Jaswant Singh who has tendered the opinion seems to have taken a simplest view of the matter without taking into consideration all these facts. Devoid of these facts nobody can take such a view. It is for the reason that we have a right in the beginning said that this opinion apart from being the opinion of an individual cannot be given too importance as a piece of evidence. Since the rejection of claim is also based on the report of Shri Jaswant Singh we find it absolutely unsustainable.

HAVING said so we would like to reiterate that in the absence of any dispute that the cover is also valid for malicious damage and terrorist activity we find it a case which is straightway covered by the terms and conditions of the policy and Insurance Company is liable to indemnify since there is no dispute about the damage having been caused we allow this complaint and direct the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 45,000/- to the complainant under the policy of insurance with 18% interest per annum from the date of loss till the date of final payment. We further allow a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation for loss and injury. This amount shall be paid within six weeks from the date of this order. A certified copy of this order be given to the parties to be collected by them on their own within a week''s time. The complaint is disposed off. Complaint disposed of. ______________