Archive · 22 Sep 2026
Punjab Commission Orders United India to Pay Theft Claim
A trader’s factory in Ludhiana was robbed in 2018.
The stolen goods were covered by an insurance policy.
The insurance company refused to pay because one person involved had been supplied as a security guard.
The company said its policy excluded theft involving someone connected to the business.
The consumer commission disagreed with that reasoning.
It said the guard had overpowered another guard and taken the keys before the robbery.
The commission ordered the insurer to pay Rs 2,04,290.
It also awarded Rs 10,000 in compensation and possible interest for late payment.
The Punjab State Consumer Commission upheld a Rs 2,04,290 burglary claim for Ludhiana trader M/s G K Traders.
The burglary occurred on March 21, 2018, at the trader’s factory and involved goods covered by an insurance policy.
United India Insurance Company rejected the claim, citing an exclusion for theft involving someone connected with the insured’s business.
The commission ruled that the security guard involved had overpowered another guard and taken the keys before the burglary, so the exclusion did not apply.
The insurer must pay the claim, Rs 10,000 compensation, and 8% annual interest if the claim remains unpaid after 30 days.
- Who
- M/s G K Traders and United India Insurance Company were the main parties; the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission decided the appeal.
- What
- The commission upheld payment of a Rs 2,04,290 burglary insurance claim and awarded Rs 10,000 compensation.
- When
- The burglary occurred on March 21, 2018; the commission issued its decision on September 2, with no year specified in the article.
- Where
- The burglary occurred at M/s G K Traders’ premises in Ludhiana, Punjab.
- Why
- The commission found that the insurer was not justified in applying the policy exclusion because the alleged burglar had overpowered a guard and taken the keys before committing the burglary.
Punjab Consumer Commission and Trader
United India Insurance Company
Whether the policy exclusion applied
Punjab Consumer Commission and Trader
The commission held that the exclusion did not apply because the alleged burglar had overpowered another security guard, taken the keys and then committed the burglary.
United India Insurance Company
The insurer argued that the person involved had been deputed as a substitute security guard and was connected with the premises, triggering the policy exclusion.
Whether the burglary was covered
Punjab Consumer Commission and Trader
The commission found that the policy covered burglary by forcible means and that the theft itself was not disputed.
United India Insurance Company
The insurer argued that there was no forcible entry because the keys were obtained after a guard was overpowered.
Delay and details in the police report
Punjab Consumer Commission and Trader
The commission said the one-day delay in registering the FIR was not material because the police had been informed and an FIR was filed.
United India Insurance Company
The insurer questioned the one-day FIR delay and noted that the FIR did not state the value and quantity of the stolen goods.
- Claim amount
- Rs 2,04,290
- Compensation
- Rs 10,000
- Interest
- 8% annually on the claim amount if unpaid within 30 days
- Burglary date
- March 21, 2018
- Policy period
- January 1 to December 31, 2018
- Surveyor’s assessment
- Rs 2.04 lakh
- Appeal deposit
- Rs 1,08,800 plus accrued interest to be remitted to the trader