GIRISH C. BHATIA vs United India Insurance Co.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Omni Van for Rs. 1,32,000/-. It was got registered with RTO at Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi and was given registration No.DL-3C-B-449.The complainant got it insured as private car for the period from 5.6.91 to 4.6.92 for a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- with the respondent and paid a premium of Rs. 4,047/-. Later, it is alleged, the price of the van was increased to Rs. 1,62,000/-.

IT is further pleaded that the complainant requested the respondent on 12.8.91 to increase the value of the car in the above policy to Rs. 1,62,000/-. He paid a premium of Rs. 855/- for the same as demanded by them. On the night intervening 12th and 13th August'' 91, the vehicle was stolen from his residence. The matter was reported to the police on 13.8.91 at 6.15 a.m. He submitted the claim to the respondent on 17.9.91 and requested them to make payment of the amount for which the car was insured. The respondent offered an amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- to the complainant vide letter dated 25.9.92 in settlement of his claim. The complainant made a representation to them to increase the amount to Rs. 1.62.000/- which they failed to do. Consequently he filed a complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,62,000/- as compensation for the car, Rs. 21,870/- on account of interest @ 18% p.a. from 3.8.91 upto 12.8.92 on the sum of Rs. l,62,000/- Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They have inter-alia pleaded that the car was got insured on 5.6.91. The price of the vehicle was, increased to Rs. 1,60,500/- with effect from 24.7.92. The complainant''s father was working as Assistant Divisional Manager in one of the Divisional Offices of the respondent. He approached the office of respondent, which had issued the original policy, at the close of the office hours on 12.8.91 and requested the Branch Manager to enhance the sum assured from Rs. 1,32,000/- to Rs. 1,62,000/- and also handed over the cheque dated 10.8.92 towards the premium. The Branch Manager did not physically verify the vehicle, accepted the cheque and handed over the same to the concerned officer on the morning of 13.8.92 for enhancing the sum assured. The officer issued an endorsement on 13.8.92 enhancing the sum assured. It is alleged, that the complainant by misusing his father''s position, got the endorsement regarding enhancing the sum assured manipulated after the theft had already taken place. They, therefore, settled the claim of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/-. The complainant, however, refused to accept the said amount in settlement of his claim. They denied that the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/-, interest, damages etc.

THE question that arises for determination is whether the letter for enhancement of the amount of the insurance amount alongwith the cheque for the additional premium was handed over to the respondent on 12.8.91. It is not disputed that the van was got insured for a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- on 25.6.91 and the price of the vehicle was increased w.e.f. 24.7.91. It has not been explained as to why the complainant did not get the amount of insurance of the van enhanced immediately after its price had been increased to Rs. 1,62,000/- and odd. It is alleged that the letter for enhancing the insurance amount was given along with a cheque regarding premium to the Manager of the Branch on 12.8.91 late in the evening. The cheque and the letter bore the dates 10.8.9l. It has also not been explained that when the letter and the cheque had been prepared on 10.8.91 (Monday) why these were not delivered to the Insurance Company till 12.8.91. Even on that date those were delivered late in the evening to the Manager. These two documents were not entered in the Receipt Register. In case these had been received during the office hours an entry should have been made in the Receipt Register.

THE van was admittedly stolen on the night intervening 12th and 13th August ''91. THE in formation regarding the theft was lodged with the Police Station early in the morning 13.8.91. No information regarding the theft of the van was given by the complainant to the Insurance Company on the same day. When the letter for enhancing the insurance money had been given on 12.8.91 in the evening, it became the duty of the complainant to have given the information regarding theft to the Insurance Company on 13.8.91. However, it was given to them on 14.8.91. This crucial delay of one day has also not been explained in the affidavit. It is not disputed that the complainant''s father is Asstt. Divisional Manager in another branch of the Insurance Company. Being an officer in the Company he must be wielding great influence in the Company. As A.D.M. he is enjoying a higher status than that of a Manager of the Company. It appears that by mis-using his official position the father of the complainant, in collusion with the Manager of the Darya Ganj Branch, with which the van was insured, manipulated that the letter for enhancement of the insurance money of the van be shown to have been received by the Manager on 12.8.91. This was done by them to defraud the Insurance Company and to benefit the complainant, who is the son of the Asstt. Divisional Manager. The matter requires a probe by the Insurance Company, so that such incidents do not occur in future. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the claimant is not entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,62,000/- as claimed by him and that the claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the Insurance Company.

FOR the afore said reasons we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss the same with costs. Costs Rs. 1000./-. However, the complainant shall be entitled to receive the amount for which the vehicle was initially insured. Complaint dismissed with costs. _______________