Kochi Ombudsman Centre
Case No. IO / KCH / GI / 11/ UIIC/ 01 /2004 – 05
Shri. Glamour
Vs
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
The complainant under Rule 12(1) (b) read with Rule 13 of the RPG Rules 1998, was against the inaction / treating the case as NO CLAIM by the insurer against a burglary claim filed by the complainant before the insurer. The insurer had issued a burglary policy No. 100300/046/01/07224 for the period 05/02/2002 to 04.02.2003 for a sum insured of Rs. 5 lakhs. The shop was burgled in the wee hours of the night on 2/3-4-2002.
The insurer alleged that there was no possibility for a case of burglary in the premises of the complainant as it was covered almost on all sides by plain glass and the shop having been located at a central place at Kozhikode. The insurer doubted the veracity of the claim. However, there was nothing more than a suspicion and credibility could not be attached to far-fetched imagination. Thefts do take place even in crowded places.
Another allegation was that the complainant had not submitted the account books before the surveyor saying that they were all with the police. However, the records would show that the account books were infact submitted subsequently and even before the police submitted a “non-detection report”, the insurer was in a hurry to close to the file as “NO CLAIM”. As confirmed by the surveyor and the complainant himself, the loss was about Rs. 2 lakhs. However, since the complainant himself had admitted that certain unaccounted goods were also stored in the premises for which there was no insurance, the claim allowed for a reduced sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs in full and final settlement thereof.
