1 day ago
West Bengal Commission Orders Insurer to Pay Dacoity Claim
A finance company lost money when robbers attacked its branch in 2015.
The company had insurance for problems like this.
The insurance company refused to pay the claim.
It said the company had not used certain security measures.
The consumer commission said those measures were not required by the policy.
It also said the insurer did not prove that the company had broken the policy.
The commission ordered the insurer to pay Rs 44.54 lakh.
The decision said rejecting the whole claim was unfair and was a deficiency in service.
A finance company lost cash during an armed dacoity on June 1, 2015.
The insurer rejected the resulting claim, citing a policy breach and missing security measures.
The West Bengal State Consumer Commission ordered the insurer to pay Rs 44.54 lakh.
The Commission said the insurer failed to prove a policy breach or valid exclusion.
It ruled that rejecting the entire claim despite a reconciled assessment constituted deficiency in service.
- Who
- A finance company, a public sector insurance company, and the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- The Commission ordered the insurer to pay Rs 44.54 lakh for cash lost in an armed dacoity.
- Where
- The incident occurred at the finance company's branch office in West Bengal.
- When
- The dacoity occurred on June 1, 2015; the Commission issued its decision on August 31, with the year not specified.
- Why
- The Commission found that the insurer failed to prove a policy breach or an applicable exclusion allowing it to reject the entire claim.
Finance company's position
Insurer's position
Reason for claim rejection
Finance company's position
The finance company challenged the rejection and sought payment for cash lost in the armed dacoity.
Insurer's position
The insurer rejected the claim, citing a policy breach linked to the absence of security measures.
Policy requirements
Finance company's position
The finance company argued, in effect, that the missing security precautions did not justify denying the entire claim.
Insurer's position
The insurer relied on the alleged absence of security measures as a basis for rejecting the claim.
Extent of liability
Finance company's position
The finance company was awarded Rs 44.54 lakh after the Commission found the rejection deficient.
Insurer's position
The insurer's complete rejection was not accepted because it failed to establish conduct covered by a valid exclusion or a real connection to the loss.
Key facts
- Award
- Rs 44.54 lakh
- Incident
- Armed dacoity involving cash loss
- Incident date
- June 1, 2015
- Location
- The finance company's branch office in West Bengal
- Adjudicating body
- West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
- Commission members
- Rajesh Guha Ray and Santanu Saha
- Finding
- The insurer did not establish an operative exclusion or policy breach
Quotes
West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer commission issuing the ruling on the finance company’s insurance claim
“The rejection of the entire claim, despite a reconciled assessment and without establishing an operative exclusion, constitutes a deficiency in service…An exclusion framed in terms of negligence or omission cannot be applied merely by listing precautions that, with hindsight, might have been desirable”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Consumer panel orders NIACL to pay Rs 3.60L for stolen truck claim
Insurer to pay widow Rs 50 lakh after rejecting claim
Kurnool Commission Orders HDFC ERGO To Pay ₹1 Crore
Mumbai Consumer Commission Pulls Up New India Assurance, Orders Payment
