Page 52 - Insurance Times September 2015 SAMPLE
P. 52
LEGAL
Legal Case Studies Based on
Burglary - Ombudsman Decisions
Bhubaneswar Ombudsman Centre of receipt of complaint i.e. 06-08-2004 cannot be termed as "burglary". The
Case No. I.O.O. / B.B.S.R. / with a view that in absence of any Police authorities have registered the
11.002.0054 policy conditions to keep the tractor claim under theft.
inside a garage at night which is an
Shri. Gadadhar Panda vs. The impossible concept for village farmers, A joint hearing was conducted where
New India Assurance Company the repudiation appears to be unrea- the reading of operative clause makes
sonable and arbitrary. it clear that the policy is not giving
Ltd. coverage for the theft; but what is
Chennai Ombudsman Centre covered under the policy is only theft
The Insured - Complainant had insured Case No. IO (CHN) 11.4.1326 / following upon an actual forcible and
his tractor with tiller (Agriculture) with violent entry of and/or exit from the
New India Assurance Co. Ltd under 2004 - 05 premises. The photos taken by the sur-
commercial Vehicle Miscellaneous veyor also proves that the theft hap-
policy. On night, the starter, bulb, and Mr. S. Mahadevan vs. United pened to the consignment, which was
dynamo were stolen by some miscre- India Insurance Company Ltd. placed in the open space in front of the
ants. The incident was intimated to factory premises. As the subject policy
the Banamalipur out post where a FIR Mr. S. Mahadevan, the sole Proprietor did not cover the loss of this nature,
was lodged with Balipatna P.S. of M/s. Esgee Die Castings, TASS Indus- this Forum finds no fault with the In-
trial Estate, Chennai, insured the raw- surer.
Police authorities submitted the FRT materials and finished castings under
"as fact true no clue". The surveyor Burglary and House Breaking Policy Kochi Ombudsman Centre
has assessed the loss for Rs. 8000/-, with United India Insurance Company No. IO/KCH/GI/11.003.066/2004
but insurer repudiated the claim on Limited for a sum insured of Rs.
the ground that insured vehicle was 5,50,000/-. A theft was occurred in the - 05
parked in open place, which violates factory premises and the same was
the condition no-5 relating to all rea- intimated to the police and the In- Shri. P. P. Pappachen vs. Na-
sonable steps to safeguard the vehicle. surer. The insurer rejected the claim on tional Insurance Company Ltd.
the ground that the loss happened
During the Hearing, complainant without any violent and forcible entry. The complaint under Rule No. 12(1) (b)
stated that the vehicle was kept inside They also pointed out that the mate- read with Rule No. 13 of the RPG Rules
his compound. Insurance ombudsman rial which was lost was kept in open 1998 arose from repudiation of a claim
directed the insurer to pay Rs. 8000/- and there was no evidence of forcible under House Holder's Insurance Policy
with an interest of 6% from the date entry because of which the incident held by the complainant.
48 The Insurance Times, September 2015
Copyright@ The Insurance Times. 09883398055 / 09883380339
