Supreme Court: While hearing the appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. against the order directing it to indemnify the respondent for burglary at his jewellery shop, J. Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. reversed the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding that the respondent was not entitled to claim loss of the stolen items in view of clauses 4, 5 and 12 of the Insurance Policy.

Relying on the Judgment, General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandumull Jain, AIR 1966 SC 1644, the Court held that since the burglary had been committed of the articles kept in display window during night time (after business hours) and the appellant having made it clear to the respondent in clauses 4 and 5 that they would not be liable to indemnify the loss of any such articles kept in display window after business hours, the respondent was not entitled to claim any compensation for the loss of any such stolen articles.

Therefore, considering it not necessary to examine the merits of the claim filed by the Complainant, which has been rendered infructuous, the appeal was dismissed with no costs. [United India Insurance Co. Ltd v.  Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine SC 32, Decided on January 13, 2016]


Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.