DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum, is the appellant. On 16.3.1994 at 9.45 a. m. , the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB), Raj Bhavan, I. I. T. Campus, Madras-36, noticed that a burglary had been committed in the premises of the office of the TNEB. A police complaint was lodged in Kotturpuram Police Station. Subsequently, the Station Officer, who investigated the case, referred the case as undetectable. The total amount stolen was Rs.2,41,431/- among other records kept in the locker. The TNEB had taken a policy against burglary and house-breaking with the opposite party Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The complainant made a claim for the said amount with the opposite party, but the opposite party by an order dated 2.12.1994 repudiated the claim stating that the claim was outside the scope of the burglary covered under the policy. According to the complainant, the said repudiation was unreasonable and without any basis and this amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus alleging the complaint has been filed.

(2.) The opposite party contended that soon after the incident was reported to them, the matter was investigated by one Mr. Meenakshisundaram, a retired Additional Superintendent of Police who had reported that there was no burglary as alleged since there was no evidence of forcible entry and that the theft should have been committed by any of the employees of the complainant. Subsequently another Surveyor was appointed by the opposite party and he also confirmed the earlier report. On the basis of these reports the opposite party repudiated the claim saying that the claim was not covered by the policy. Thus there was no deficiency in service or. their part and therefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, accepted the case of the complainant and held that it was a case of burglary and therefore the repudiation was unreasonable and the opposite party had committed deficiency in service. The District Forum therefore passed an award directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,41,431/- being the amount stolen, and also interest @ 18% p. a. from 28.3.1994 till realisation. It further ordered a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs.