BHUPINDER CHAUDHARY Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant-gas Company has claimed compensation of Rs.5,50,800 from the OP-Insurance Company on account of theft of LPG cylinders from its godown.

(2.) Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is running a business of supply of LPG cylinder under the name and style of M/s. Pearl Gas Service from the abovesaid address. He got insured the gas service under Liquid Petroleum Gas Traders Policy with the OP vide Policy No.469728 dated 6.5.1997 valid upto 5.5.1998. A theft was committed at the godown of M/s. Pearl Gas Service and FIR was lodged at Police Station, Model Town. The theft was of LPG cylinder numbering about 306 which was the property of Indian Oil Corporation under the custody of the complainant. The complainant immediately informed the Indian Oil Corporation and the OP-Insurance Company. The Indian Oil Corporation raised a debit note of Rs.5,50,800 against the complainant for which the OP-Company is liable to indemnify. The OP replied that the claim of the complainant is not admissible due to the fact that the theft was committed by the employee on the complainant. The claim of the complainant was rejected. The OP is liable to indemnify the loss of Rs.5,50,000 as per debit note raised by the Indian Oil Corporation.

(3.) Op denied any deficiency in service on its part and averred that the claim of the complainant was not admissible and was specifically excluded under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by the OP. The claim was lodged under Liquid Petroleum Gas Traders Policy. As per the special exceptions clause contained in the said policy the Company was not liable in respect of loss or damage by burglary and/or house breaking where the employee of the insured or member of the insured's family is concerned as principal or accessory. The theft of the gas cylinders was committed by the employees of the insured the claim was not payable and was accordingly rejected by the OP-Company and due communication in this behalf was sent to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.