SANJAY GARG Vs. UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this matter, there is pure and simple question of interpretation of policy cover. The policy which has ensured the risk reads as under :

(2.) The State Commission took note of the fact from the First Information Report and the allegations in the comp -laint that the Ericsson telephone was lost out the rider on the loss by adding the phrase due to accident only on the term physical loss as well. The pure and simple question is whether the phrase due to accident only would clarify the phrase physical loss or not or it would clarify only the word loss as well as word damage. Physical loss would include the loss by leaving it somewhere, by robbery or theft by somebody else without the mobile phone being damaged in any accident. If we consider the main purpose of the insurance policy, we cannot afford to take a very restricted view. We feel that the State Commission had taken appropriate view in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest. Accor -dingly, we hold that in this policy, the physical loss having been proved, the petitioner is entitled to claim the amount of the depreciated value of the telephone. In case we take 10% depreciation, the petitioner is entitled to get at least a