VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26 -08 - 1998 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby RFA No. 607/1998 1 the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 2,06,260/ - against the respondent was dismissed.

(2.) THE appellant -plaintiff(hereinafter referred to as ,,the plaintiff) had obtained a House Holders Package Policy(Ex.PW -1/3) from the respondent -defendant(hereinafter referred to as ,,the defendant) to cover the loss of household articles kept at his rented house no. B -1/39 (Ground Floor), Hauz Khas, New Delhi in the event of any incident of burglary, house breaking or theft etc. taking place there. The insurance policy was for a period of one year from 26 -11 -85 to 25 -11 -86. While approaching the defendant for issuing the insurance policy the plaintiff had submitted a list of household articles to the Company and the value of those articles given was Rs. 1,69,710/ -. The defendant had accepted the plaintiffs proposal and had agreed to indemnify the plaintiff against loss of the household articles because of burglary, house breaking or theft in his house but limiting its liability to Rs. 1,69,710/ -. As per the plaintiffs case, on 5th January, 1986 his landlord Mr. N.C. Pant with the help of a number of persons forcibly broke into his afore -said premises in Hauz Khas and removed valuable articles. A similar incident again took place on 9th January, 1986 when some more articles were stolen from the house of the plaintiff. In respect of those two incidents the plaintiff had lodged a complaint with Hauz Khas police station and a case under Sections 454/380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The defendant was also intimated about the said two incidents by the plaintiff vide his letter dated 10 -01 - 86(Ex. PW -1/8) since the articles removed from his house by the culprits were covered under the insurance policy and a claim was lodged with it which was registered by the defendant as claim no. 46/00006/86. The depreciated value of the stolen goods was given to be approximately Rs.1,50,000/ -. The defendant, however, rejected the plaintiffs claim vide letter its dated 24th November, 1986(Ex.PW -1/15) and the defendant Company completely disowned its liability under the insurance policy Ex.PW -1/3. The plaintiff thereafter got issued a notice dated 23 -07 -1987, Ex.PW -1/16, to the defendant through an advocate calling upon the defendant to settle his claim and to pay the claimed amount along with interest @ 18.5% p.a. In response to that legal notice the defendant sent a reply dated 10 -10 -1988(Ex.PW -1/17) wherein also it was stated that the claim of the plaintiff had been rejected. Having been left with no other option but to file a suit for recovery the plaintiff filed a suit on 06 -11 -88 for recovery of Rs. 2,06,260/ - which included the sum of Rs.1,50,000/ - being the value of the stolen articles and the rest of the amount was on account of interest. Pendente -lite and future interest @ 18.5% p.a. was also claimed.

(3.) THE pleadings of the parties led to the framing of the following issues: - "1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection No.2 taken in the written statement? OPD 2. Whether there was any theft or thefts in the premises as alleged by the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the claim of the plaintiff is covered under the granted by the policy of insurance? OPP 4. Whether the defendant No. 1 is justified in disclaiming its liability? OPD