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 companyplaint was lodged with the police and claim made with the appellant companypany for the value of pledge jewellery which was alleged to have been lost together with a cash of Rs.
The revision preferred by the respondent bank was partially accepted by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the National Commission by setting aside the finding in so far as it related to the meaning of word safe as interpreted by the State Commission and the case remanded to the State Commission for the purposes of investigating into the matter for determining the question of quantum of loss actually caused to the respondent bank.
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 cashiers cash box in which the jewellery and cash was alleged to be kept was number a safe within the meaning of policy which companyered loss of only cash or jewellery in safe.
1999 Supp 4 SCR 329 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.
9,279.25, The District Consumer Redressal Forum, Madurai hereinafter referred to as the District Forum where the companyplaint was filed allowed the claim of the respondent bank and awarded companypensation to it as prayed for in the claim petition.
I lakh and the second was a burglary insurance policy for Rs.
25 lakhs.
Not satisfied with the order of the National Commission, the Appellant Company has preferred this appeal.
The period companyered by the latter Insurance Policy was from 6.11.1992 to 5.11.1993.
