The Central District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, while giving the relief to computer store owner S Adlakha, said the insurance company's decision to reject his claim, on the ground that it was theft and not house-breaking, was "not well-founded" as the facts showed that "theft was committed with house-breaking".
"The facts bring the case under the definition of 'house breaking'. The theft was committed with house-breaking. Consequently, the authority relied upon by the insurance firm is not applicable. It is so because in the present case there are adequate facts to show that it was a case of house breaking /theft...
The entry in the shop was with the intention to commit theft. The exit was violent. The insurance company has not disputed the theft of the laptop and its value. The rejection of the claim is not well-founded and it amounts to deficiency in service," said the bench, presided by B B Chaudhary.
In his complaint, Adlakha, owner of Repotech Systems (India) Pvt Ltd, had said the thief had come into his store enquiring about laptops and while he was showing him various machines, the thief had run off with one of them.
He also said that the thief had shoved him to the ground and tore his shirt when he tried to catch him.
He added that after lodging the FIR, when he filed the claim, the had rejected it saying it was a case of theft and not covered under the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy bought by him.(More)
