Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs HIND UDYOG CORPORATION

THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the order of the Forum dated 31.8.2000 allowing the claim filed by the complainant.

THE petitioner obtained Burglary and House Breaking Policy for covering risk from any incident of burglary, house breaking at his factory. In the night of 1.7.1996 a burglary took place at the factory which was brought to the notice of the Insurance Company. THE latter appointed a Surveyor who finally submitted a report to the Insurance Company. At long last the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. According to the petitioner the repudiation was made whimsically and arbitrarily and without any basis whatsoever. So he has prayed for a direction upon the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs. 76,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum. THE case was contested by the Insurance Company by filing a written version wherein it has been stated inter alia that no burglary had taken place at the factory. But it was only an incident of theft. It has been stated that repudiation was made after due consideration of policy condition and survey report and on proper application of mind. The Forum however allowed the claim. Being aggrieved by the order the Insurance Company has appealed. It is not disputed that the petitioner obtained Burglary and House Breaking Policy in respect of his factory. It is also not disputed that a burglary took place at the factory of the petitioner on the night of 1.7.1996. On the basis of written complaint a police case was registered with Serampore police. On a claim being preferred the Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 76,303.50. It appears that the substantive defence of the opposite party was that it was not a case of burglary but it was an incident of theft only. The investigation on the complaint of petitioner ended in a final report. The Surveyor conducted a survey of the loss said to have been suffered by the petitioner. There is nothing to reject the report of the Surveyor. The claim was preferred in the year 1996 but it was repudiated only in the year 2000. This fact shows clearly that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim within a reasonable period. We have considered all the aspects of the matter and hold that the Forum has come to a correct conclusion. The appeal is without any merit and as such it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.