In Brief
An insurance company falsely denied a burglary claim by citing items were not listed, even though it had switched from 'as per list' to consolidated amount policies without communicating item-wise valuation requirements. The Supreme Court held that under-insurance (averaging) applies only when part of a category's insured items are lost; if all or most are stolen, the insured recovers the full sum insured. The Court rejected the insurer's rejection of appliance claims for lack of invoices, holding the insurer cannot accept premiums silently and later deny claims based on undisclosed requirements. The insured was awarded Rs.1,00,500 for jewellery, Rs.66,000 for appliances, Rs.28,000 for watches and miscellaneous items, and clothing at a reduced rate per under-insurance principle, plus Rs.25,000 compensation and interest at 12% per annum from 2009.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.