NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs NIRPREET SINGH

DISTRICT Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated August 7, 1997 allowed the complaint of Nirpreet Singh with the direction to the opposite party, National Insurance Company Limited, to pay a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- with 12% pa. interest w.e.f. September 1,1994 till payment alongwith cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The said order has been challenged by the Insurance Company in this appeal.

NIRPREET Singh, owner of Car No. CH-01 K-1122, Maruti Make, got it insured with the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- for an year commencing from November 8,1993. On May 6, 1994 the car was stolen. Polica was informed. Insurance Company was also informed. The police declared the case as untraced in July, 1994. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on December 30, 1996 on the ground that the car was in the possession of Sh. Gurpreet Singh Bawa at the time of alleged theft who was actually the owner. The complainant approached the District Forum for the relief. The complaint was contested by the Insurance Company on various grounds. The locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint was challenged. It was stated that there was a benami transaction and the complainant could not take the benefit of the insurance policy. The plea of the Insurance Company did not prevail, hence the impugned order. Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the Insurance Company has argued that though Nirpreet Singh is the registered owner, however, at die time of the alleged theft, the car was in possession of Gurpreet Singh Bawa who had actually made payment of the premium. We fail to appreciate the argument addressed. The complainant, Nirpreet Singh, is the recorded owner as registered with the Transport Authorities. He is also the insured in the Insurance Policy. Annexure C-16 is the Registration Certificate showing Nirpreet Singh to be the owner and Annexure Oil is the insurance policy in the name of Nirpreet Singh. It is the complainant who hao hired the services of the Insurance Company on payment of the necessary premium hence it is he who is the consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act entitled to file the complaint and recover the insured amount under the policy.

Since the police had filed the case as untraced with regard to the theft of the car, the factum of theft stands established. The repudiation of the claim in the present case on assumed ground of benami transaction etc. is arbitrary and non-settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency in rendering service. It may further be observed that the alleged repudiation of the claim was after more than two years of lodging of the claim and the delay per se in repudiating the claim amounts to deficiency in rendering service. Finding of the District Forum in this respect is, therefore, affirmed. The Surveyor submitted the report holding loss to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- which is a new car purchased on November 8, 1993 and within six months the theft took place, hence there is no question of depreciation in the value of the car. The Surveyor rightly fixed the loss of the car at Rs. 1,60,000/-. Since the policy was a comprehensive, the complainant is entitled to the aforesaid amount.

MR. Pardeep Bedi, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the grant of interest in the present case should have been 3-4 months after submission of the report. This contention cannot be accepted. Immediately after the theft, the claim was lodged with the Insurance Company and the Surveyor was appointed. The Surveyor has taken unnecessarily almost an year in submitting the report. The complainant is not to suffer on that account. The District Forum rightly allowed compensation by way of interest on the aforesaid amount of value of the car w.e.f. September 1, 1994, allowing about three months time from lodging of the claim. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.