LAJWANTI vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

1.THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 17.12.2004, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T. Chandigarh, vide which her complaint was dismissed.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the Maruti car bearing Registration No. PB -27 -A0489 was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., vide comprehensive policy No. 0575, w.e.f. 26.12.2001 to 25.12.2002, and a premium of Rs. 4,968 was paid in cash vide receipt No. 2727 dated 24.12.2001. Prior to it, it was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for a period of 26.12.2000 to 25.12.2001. It was next alleged that the said Maruti car was stolen on 19.1.2002 at about 4.00 a.m. from a place situated at a distance of 1 1/2 kilometres from Lalru, while coming from Ambala to Chandigarh. FIR No. 19 dated 19.1.2002, under Section 379, IPC, was got registered by the son of appellant Rahul Chander, in Police Station, Lalru. In fact, Sh. Rahul Chander was the driver of the vehicle when the car was stolen. The car could not be traced, in spite of best efforts made by the police and, ultimately, the police sent untraced report to the Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura.

IT was further averred that the appellant informed the National Insurance Company Ltd. about the loss of the vehicle, but no Surveyor was appointed by it to assess the loss. Ultimately, appellant made written request and a Surveyor/loss assessor was deputed to assess the loss. However, the Surveyor obtained signatures of the appellant on blank papers and promised to settle the claim within a few months. Later on, the Insurance Company repudiated her claim on flimsy grounds. Since, the claim had been repudiated on flimsy grounds and theft of the car had taken place, so, it was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of National Insurance Company Ltd.

WITH these allegations, complaint was filed for ordering respondents to pay Rs. 1,90,000 towards loss of the vehicle, along with interest @ 18% p.a. till payment and damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000. The complaint was filed on 21.10.2003. Respondents contested the complaint and filed written reply. They denied the allegations of the complainant and stated that information was given to the Insurance Company very late i.e. after a period of three months of the commission of theft of the vehicle. They further stated that statements of complainant and Rahul Chander, as stated in the FIR were contradictory and as such could not be believed and the insurer has rightly repudiated the claim. They next stated that the complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands and she filed complaint on totally frivolous grounds and as such the same be rejected.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way affidavits.

AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, the District Forum -I dismissed the complaint as they found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Company in repudiating the claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

WE have heard Ms. Baljeet Kaur Bhullar, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondents and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that the Maruti car bearing registration No. PB27A -0489 was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide comprehensive policy No. 0575 w.e.f. 26.12.2001 to 25.12.2002, and the appellant had paid premium of Rs. 4968 in cash vide receipt No. 2727 dated 24.12.2001. Further, case is that Sh. Rahul Chander, son of the appellant was returning from Delhi to Chandigarh in the said car, on 19.1.2002 and when he reached 1 1/2 kilometres ahead Lalru then the car broke down, as the tyre was punctured and Mr. Rahul Chander got out of the car to change the wheel but could not do so himself and as such went in search of a mechanic. When he returned, he found his car missing. He had lodged report in the Police Station, Lalru on 19.1.2002 itself, bearing FIR No. 19 dated 19.1.2002, under Section 379, IPC. Later on, after investigation, the said case was sent as untraced by the police and the report sent by the police was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, vide order dated 10.1.2003. It is true, that the statement of Smt. Lajwanti, which had been recorded by the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company is at variance with the statement of her son Rahul Chander but some discrepancies are likely to occur in her statement due to lapse of time and also due to the fact that she was not present at the spot when the theft took place and, in fact, she was not accompanying her son Rahul Chander. She had tried to aggravate the offence by stating that when her son had changed the wheel, then two persons caught hold of him and gave him push and took away his vehicle. However, her statement is mere hearsay and on this score alone, statement of Rahul Chander, as stated in the FIR, cannot be brushed aside. Moreover, National Insurance Co. Ltd. had got the matter investigated through Col. (Retd.) Shiv Kumar. He had recorded statement of Sultan Singh S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh who was working as Chowkidar in a factory at a distance of about 250/300 mtrs from the place of occurrence. He stated that he learnt during the day that a car said to have been parked by Rahul Chander Mani of Kharar had been stolen. Thus, he had also confirmed the theft of the car. His statement to that effect that he did not hear any noise for help, is not believable because those were days of winter having foggy night and probably he must have been inside the factory and could not hear any noise coming from Rahul for help. The report submitted by Col. Shiv Kumar is based on flimsy grounds. He has tried to favour the Insurance Company. In fact, such type of persons should not be appointed as Investigators. His report showed biased mind and by hook or crook he wanted to get the claim of the appellant rejected. Therefore, from the FIR coupled with the statement of Rahul Chander it is conclusively proved that theft of Maruti car bearing registration No. PB -27A -0489 had taken place on 19.1.2002 at about 4.00 a.m. at a distance of 1 1/2 kilometres from Lalru towards Chandigarh side. There is no dispute about it that the car was insured for theft having value of Rs. 1,90,000. Since, the respondents had repudiated the claim of the appellant for the payment of the price of the car i.e. Rs. 1,90,000, so, there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with costs and the order of the District Forum -I, dated 17.12.2004 is set aside. Respondents are directed to pay Rs. 1,90,000 to the appellant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of occurrence, till the payment of the amount. Costs are quantified at Rs. 2000. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal allowed.