J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral):
1. Admittedly the appellant got his TV shop insured with the respondent by obtaining Shopkeepers Insurance Policy which was valid for period of one year from 11th January, 2001 to 10th January, 2002. On 10th January, 2001, a temporary servant committed theft of 3 colour TVs, six black and white TVs, etc. Consequently he lodged claim with the respondent company. The claim was repudiated in terms of Clause 11 of the policy providing that the company shall not be liable in respect of any loss or damage by burglary or house breaking where any partner or employee of the insured or member of the insureds family is concerned as principal or accessory. Feeling aggrieved, appellant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking indemnification of the loss.
2. Vide impugned order dated 18th May, 2002 passed by the District Forum, the complaint was dismissed by upholding the ground of repudiation of the claim by the respondent.
3. Through this appeal, the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the complainant lodged a report with the police and police took six days in conducting the inquiry and registering the F.I.R. and further that Clause 11 of the policy is not applicable in the instant case inasmuch as that definition of the term âBurglary and/or house breaking shall mean theft involving entry into or exit from the insured premises by forcible and violent means or theft following assault or violence or threat thereof to the insured or any employee of the insured or member of the insured family.
4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention Clause 11(1) under the title âSpecial Exceptions needs to be reproduced. It reads as under:
âLoss or damage by burglary and/or house breaking where any partner or employee of the insured or member of the insureds family is concerned as principal or accessory.â
5. Though it is mentioned in this condition about partner or employee of the insured or member of the insureds family, however Hindi version of this clause only refers to partner or member of the insured family and not to the employee of the insured. It is contented that the appellant being ordinary layman and shopkeeper and only Hindi knowing was expected to only read Hindi version of the policy and even if English version is given its purposeful meaning it only refers to those employees of the insured who were permanent employees and not the employee employed temporarily or by way of stop gap arrangement.
6. On the contrary Counsel for the respondent contends that the F.I.R. was lodged after 6 days and this delay has not been explained and further that an employee is employee whether permanent or temporary and burglary or house breaking is always committed after sunset.
7. After according careful consideration to the contentions of the Counsel for the parties, we find that delay in lodging F.I.R. in many cases is on the part of the police as it is common experience that at first instance police is reluctant to straightaway register the F.I.R. so as to avoid the obligation of investigation and submission of final report for the purpose of insurance claim.
8. In our view, mere lodging of report as to a criminal offence tantamount to F.I.R. The terminology of F.I.R. means that any complaint received by the police at the first instance lodged by a person. F.I.R. only sets the machinery into investigation and finding evidence and persons guilty for the offence.
9. Even otherwise in the context of insurance policy the F.I.R. cannot be given the meaning as is being provided by the Criminal Procedure Code. If there are two possible interpretations of any terminology like F.I.R., the information in the context of indemnification of loss arising out of the insurance claim is the only interpretation which should be accepted and adopted. Any time taken by the police converting complaint of person into F.I.R. cannot be attributed to the complainant nor is he responsible for any delay in converting his complaint into F.I.R. Such a delay is no delay either on the part of the complainant or on the part of the police and therefore this cannot be used to the disadvantage of the consumer and undue advantage to the service provider.
10. Clause 12 defines burglary as under:
âTheft involving entry into or exit from the insured premises by forcible and violent means or theft following assault or violence or threat thereof to the insured or any employee of the insured or member of the insured family.â
11. As regards, Hindi version of the Clause 11 has to be given precedence in the given situation where the consumer does not know English or does not comprehend the English version of the terms of insurance policy. In Clause 11 there is no reference of the offence being committed by servant or employee. There is only reference of partner or member of the family, Similarly, it is very strange that the framers of the terms of Shopkeeper Insurance Policy were completely unaware or ignorant of the fact that on one hand they have defined the term burglary and house breaking as a theft involving entry into or exist from the insured premises by forcible and violent means or theft following assault or violence or threat thereof to the insured or any employee of the insured or member of the insured family. While on the other hand while defining burglary and house breaking it has referred to the loss or damage by burglary and/or housebreaking where any partner or employee of the insured or member of the insureds family is injured.
12. It is the overall effect of the terms of the policy particularly the Hindi version which can be easily comprehended by a laymen or person who does not know English that should determine the claim. The interpretation or meaning to be imparted to such terms of the contract should be done with a view to fulfill the object and its purpose and serve the interest of the consumer, in other words terms cannot be read in isolation and should not be used with a view to defeat the claim of the consumer.
13. Moreover word âemployee ordinarily means a permanent employee. If insured avails the service of a person as employee on purely temporary or stop gap arrangement, he should not be denied the benefit of the policy.
14. Foregoing reasons persuade us to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to pay Rs. 29,000 towards actual loss suffered by him besides Rs. 10,000 including cost of litigation as compensation towards mental agony and harassment suffered by the appellant. Payment shall be made within one month after receipt of this order.
15. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
16. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
17. Copy be sent to Presidents of all the District Forums.
Appeal allowed.