AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is an appeal against the order of the 14th August, 1992 of the State Commission of Tamil Nadu in O.P. No. 93 of 1992 on its file.
THE facts of the case briefly are that the Respondent Complainant had taken out a Burglary Policy from 11th of May, 1990 to 10th of May, 1991. The policy was due to be renewed from the 11th of May, 1991. According to the Insured he had sent premium by post on 10th of May, 1991 but the Insurance Company avers that it was received by it on 16th May, 1991 and it renewed the policy with effect from that date i.e. 16th of May, 1991. Meanwhile there was a burglary in the Cooperative Bank on 13th May, 1991. Jewels taken by the Bank as security for the loan advanced were found to be burgled. The loss of jewels was reported to the Insurance Company on 20th of May, 1991.
THE claim for loss on account of burglary was filed with the Insurance Company but was repudiated by it on 13th October, 1991 on the ground it there was no insurance cover when the burglary was committed and the loss took place.
THE State Commission by its order under appeal came to the finding that the premium had been remitted by post on the 10th of May, 1991 i.e. before the burglary was committed and the loss took place and therefore, the policy of insurance ought to have been issued for the period from 11.5.1991 to 5.1992 instead from 16.5.1991 to 15.5.1992. The State Commission held that the burglary has taken place on the 12th/13th May, 1991 i.e. during the period of currency of the policy and therefore, the Complainant was entitled to compensation. It awarded a sum of Rs. 1,16,751 with interest at 12% from 13.5.1991 till payment and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The Appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the order of the State Commission on various grounds: 1. The postal stamp of the post office of posting on the letter dated 10th May, 1991 containing the premium cheque, in the custody of the appellant-Insurance Company is torn. In consequence the date of despatch cannot be ascertained from the cover of this letter. The certificate of posting of the letter showing the date of posting as 10th of May, 1991 cannot be relied upon. 2. There was inordinate delay in the delivery of the letter: It is claimed to have been posted on the 10th May and delivered on the 16th May, 1991 though the distance between Perumbandur and Poonamallee, Madras the office of the appellant-Insurer, is about only 20 kms. or so. 3. There was inordinate delay on the part of the Respondent-Complainant in reporting the factumof theft to the Appellant-Insurer viz. 20th of May, 1991 whereas the theft took place on 13th of May, 1991.
According to the appellant, Insurance Company, the cheque towards the payment of premium was really ante-dated and its alleged despatch on the 10th May, 1991 was manipulated. Furthermore, even if the premium cheque was posted on 10th of May, 1991 it was at the option of the Insurer to assume risk by issuing insurance policy from 15th May, 1991 or not.
WE find that the repudiation of the claim under insurance policy was made after due application of mind and for relvant reasons. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company. The appeal is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside. No order as to costs.