<STRONG>Word play</STRONG>

A businessman had a Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy, which said that it would be effective only while it was “in the custody of the insured, partner or his employees.” Some gold went missing while in the custody of an apprentice. The insurance company repudiated the claim stating that the loss occurred while the jewellery was in the custody of an apprentice and not an employee. The businessman filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, which ultimately reached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The forum held in favour of the businessman saying that the word ‘employee’ includes apprentice, as per the Kerala Shops and Establishments Act and the Employees State Insurance Act. The insurance company appealed to the Supreme Court. The apex court held that the case was solely governed by the insurance contract because various statutes may define the word ‘employee’ to include apprentice, but the insurance contract does not once indicate that the word employee shall have the same meaning as that indicated by the Acts. (New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Abhilash Jewellery)

Child rights

A person died due to electrocution in 1986. His children filed a suit for compensation in the year 1999 before the principal district judge, Budgam. The state contended that though the children were minors at the time of their father’s death, their mother could have filed the suit within the statutory period, which is two years. When the matter reached the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, it held that when a person, on account of being a minor, is unable to file a suit within the stipulated time period, he may do so once he becomes an adult or within two years from the time he attains adulthood. (State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others vs Mushtaq Ahmad Wani & Others.)

<B>Deserted wife</B>

A man filed a suit for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion by his wife. When the family court judge of Agartala dismissed the suit, the man appealed before the Gauhati High Court. The high court observed that although the husband could not adduce a single witness to prove instances of cruelty, the wife had adduced four witnesses including the husband’s relatives who deposed that it was he who had deserted her and their daughter. (Nabakumar Banik vs Amita Dutta)