Summary
A householder disputed reductions and rejection of burglary claims. The Court distinguished total loss of a covered group from partial loss for under-insurance averaging, allowed supported appliance and watch claims despite absent invoices under a consolidated-value policy, and enhanced compensation and interest.
Issues
- When under-insurance permits proportional averaging and whether missing purchase invoices justified rejecting supported household claims.
Held
- Where the entire insured group is lost, recovery is capped by the sum insured without a further averaging deduction. For partial loss within an under-insured group, a proportional reduction may apply. Thus the entire jewellery loss attracted the full insured sum of Rs.1,00,500, while partial clothing loss remained subject to averaging. (¶¶ 8–12(i), 12(iii))
- Silver cutlery could not be shifted to the kitchenware heading after exhaustion of the jewellery-and-valuables limit; the rejection of that separate claim was upheld. (¶ 12(ii))
- Under the consolidated-amount policy, the supported appliance and watch claims could not be rejected solely for missing invoices. An insurer seeking itemised values must advise the insured when issuing or renewing the policy rather than accept premium and later rely on absent details. (¶ 12(iv)–(v))
Result
Appliances allowed at Rs.66,000, miscellaneous items at Rs.28,000, jewellery at Rs.1,00,500 and repairs at Rs.7,000; clothing subject to under-insurance and silver-cutlery claim rejected. Compensation and expenses fixed at Rs.25,000; interest 12% annually from 1 January 2009 until payment, with credit for amounts paid or deposited.