New Delhi: The New India Assurance Co Ltd has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 45,000 to a computer store owner for rejecting his claim for the theft of a laptop from his shop.
The Central District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, while giving the relief to computer store owner S Adlakha, said the insurance company's decision to reject his claim, on the ground that it was theft and not house-breaking, was "not well-founded" as the facts showed that "theft was committed with house-breaking".
"The facts bring the case under the definition of 'house breaking'. The theft was committed with house-breaking. Consequently, the authority relied upon by the insurance firm is not applicable. It is so because in the present case there are adequate facts to show that it was a case of house breaking /theft...
The entry in the shop was with the intention to commit theft. The exit was violent.The insurance company has not disputed the theft of the laptop and its value. The rejection of the claim is not well-founded and it amounts to deficiency in service," said the bench, presided by B B Chaudhary.
In his complaint, Adlakha, owner of Repotech Systems (India) Pvt Ltd, had said the thief had come into his store enquiring about laptops and while he was showing him various machines, the thief had run off with one of them.
He also said that the thief had shoved him to the ground and tore his shirt when he tried to catch him.
He added that after lodging the FIR, when he filed the claim, the had rejected it saying it was a case of theft and not covered under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy bought by him.
The company in its defence contended that as per the policy issued to Adlakha, cover was provided against burglary and house-breaking,fire and allied perils and not for theft.
It said it had rejected Adlakha's claim, on the basis of the FIR lodged by the police officers under section 380 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code, as theft is not covered under the policy issued to him.
The forum rejected the contention saying "the claim cannot be rejected merely because the FIR was recorded under section 380 IPC. It is to be found out if the facts of the case can bring the case of the complainant for reimbursement in regard to the policy under the heading 'burglary, house
breaking'."
The bench directed the company to pay Adlakha Rs 35,000, the value of the laptop, along with Rs 10,000 as compensation for harassment and cost of litigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment