ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SAMA YANALLUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP. BANK

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 02-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
SAMA YANALLUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP. BANK 
NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Insurance. 
Burglary Policy-Scope of-Cash and jewellery stolen from cash box-
Policy covering loss of only cash or jewellery in safe- 'Safe '-Meaning of- C 
Held, insurance policy to be construed having reference only to the 
stipulation contained in it-Cash box could not be equated with safe within 
the meaning of the policy-Hence, said burglary not covered by the policy. 
Respondent-bank took a burglary insurance policy from the appellant 
and during the subsistence of the policy, burglary took place in the premises D 
of the respondent and cash box containing money and pledged jewellery was 
found missing. Claim filed by the respondent was allowed by the District 
Forum. In appeal, tM State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set 
, 
aside the order of the District Forum holding that "cashier's cash box" was 
not a "safe" within the meaning of the policy which covered "loss of only E 
cash or jewellery in safe". Revision preferred by the respondent was partially 
allowed by National Consumer Disputed Redr.essal Commission by setting 
aside the finding of the State Commission relating to the meaning of word 
"safe" and remanded the case to it for determining the actual loss caused to 
the respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the National Commission, the 
Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. 
F 
The appellant contended that the expression 'safe' was required to be 
interpreted by only referring to the insurance policies and other connected 
documents and not the dictionaries. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: I. A combined reading of the proposal of insurance and the 
insurance policy clearly indicate that the gold jewellery and the cash were 
insured in safe and locked safe which was specified by the insurP.d 111 lh<>: 
proposal itself. Admittedly, the aforesaid safe· was actually not in existc!\1·e 
329 
G 
H 
I-
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A and burglary not committed from the "safe" for which the insurance policy 
was issued. [331-G) 
2. There was no necessity of referring to the dictionaries for 
understanding the meaning of the word "safe" which the parties in the instant 
B 
case are proved to have understood while submitting the proposal and accepting 
the insurance policy. The cashier's box could not be equated with the safe 
within the meaning of the insurance policy. The alleged burglary and the 
removal of the cash box containing the jewellery and cash was not covered by 
the insurance policy between the parties. The insurance policy has to be 
construed having reference only to the stipulations contained in it and no 
c artificial far-fetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it. 
[332-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8716 of 
1997. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.97 of the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 343of1996. 
NaZIUi Waziri and Irshad Ahmad for the Appellant. 
I 
K.B. Sounder Rajan for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. The Respondent-Bank had taken two insurance policies 
with the appellant-company out of which one was a cash insurance policy 
for Rs. I lakh and the second was a burglary insurance policy for Rs. 25 
F 
lakhs. The period covered by the latter Insurance Policy was from 6. l l .1992 
to 5.11.1993. On the night of 27 January, 1993 an incident of burglary took 
place in the premises of the insured bank and the cash chest was found 
• 
missing for which a complaint was lodged with the police and claim made 
with the appellant company for the value of pledge jewellery which was 
alleged to have been lost together with a cash of Rs. 9,279.25. The District 
G Consumer Redressal Forum, Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the "District 
Forum)" where the complaint was filed allowed the claim of the respondent-
c
bank and awarded compensation to it as prayed for in the claim-petition. In 
appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras (hereinafter 
referred to as the "State Commission") set aside the award of the District 
Forum holding that "cashier's cash box" in which the jewellery and cash was 
H alleged to be kept was not a "safe" within the meaning of policy which 
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. S.P. AGRICULTURAL CO-OP. BANK [SETHI, J.] 33 J 
covered "loss of onl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.