Clipped from: https://www.business-standard.com/opinion/columns/theft-claim-rejected-as-employee-role-suspected-123102900831_1.html
According to the National Commission, the suspicious manner in which the heavy drums were stolen, without leaving any evidence, provided grounds for repudiating the claim
Photo: Reuters
Ajmer Vidyut Vitram Nigam had several stores in Sikar. The goods kept in the stores were insured under a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and under a Burglary Policy, both issued on a floater basis by United India Insurance Company.
On the night of October 3, 2011, there was a theft at the Sikar Store Campus in Sabalpura Power Station House. Six drums containing wires were stolen. The Assistant Store Controller lodged an FIR with the Kotwali Police Station. The insurer was also informed that the theft had occurred by making a forced entry through the main gate of the circle office.
The surveyor who was appointed assessed the loss at Rs 6,33,948. However, the insurer informed on March 30, 2012, that the claim had been repudiated.
The Nigam (Corporation) challenged the repudiation by filing a consumer complaint before the Sikar District Forum. The insurer contested the case. The Forum allowed the complaint and directed the insurer to settle the claim by paying the assessed amount of Rs 6,33,948. It also awarded Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
United India appealed against the decision. The Rajasthan State Commission noted that the weight of each drum of wire was about 1,000 kilograms (kgs), which meant that the stolen six drums weighed 6,000 kgs. It observed that committing such a theft would not be easy and would require the collective effort of several people to roll out the drums and load them onto a vehicle with the assistance of a crane. The Commission observed that the investigation cond-ucted at the site of the incident did not reveal any vehicle marks or other evidence of theft.
The Commission observed that the behaviour of both the chowkidars was suspicious as they had not informed their superiors about the theft. Similarly, the statement of Ghisa Ram, the Store In-charge, neither clarified why he had arrived early on that particular day nor disclosed who had informed him about the theft.
The State Commission agreed with the insurance company’s contention that the loss seemed to have been wilfully caused by certain employees of the Corporation, who later tried to pass it off as a case of theft. It set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint, holding that the claim had been rightly repudiated.
Also Read
9 years of BJP at Centre dedicated to welfare of poor: PM Modi in Ajmer
LIVE updates: BJP govt’s 9 years were devoted to service of people, says PM
Congress guarantees a hoax, will bankrupt state: PM Modi at Ajmer rally
RBI Policy: With unanimous vote, MPC keeps repo rate unchanged at 6.5%
RBI MPC: When and where to watch policy announcement by Shaktikanta Das
Casa, a four-letter word that bankers love
Israel & limits of military power
Getting to the Moon
Is India sub-leveraging the advantages of GI tagging?
Shivraj’s central problem
The Corporation contested this decision by filing a revision petition before the National Commission. It argued that a theft had indeed taken place as the police investigation report mentioned that the address or whereabouts of the accused remained unknown. The Commission did not accept this argument. It noted that since there were no signs of theft, it was impossible to determine the exact timing of the theft. It further remarked that if the incident had been promptly reported to the police, a thorough investigation of the tell-tale clues would have exposed the culprits.
Accordingly, in its order of October 9, 2023, delivered by Inder Jit Singh, the National Commission concluded that the suspicious manner in which the heavy drums of wires were stolen, without leaving any evidence, provided reasonable grounds to repudiate the claim. Thus, the insurer’s decision to repudiate the claim was upheld, and the insured’s revision petition was dismissed.
The writer is a consumer activist
aniltikotekar4sme.com 