National Insurance Company Ltd. vs DEEPAK SHERAWAT

THE above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against order dated 13.1.2003, passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 3381/2000 - entitled Shri Deepak Sherawat v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Deepak Sherawat had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that the respondent had an Insurance Policy in respect of his Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. DL-9S-D 5632, Model-1997 with New India Assurance Company Ltd., w.e.f. 11.10.1998 to 10.10.1999. It was stated that after a gap of one month from the date of expiry of the said policy the respondent had approached the appellant for an insurance cover in respect of the above said vehicle for the period from 9.11.1999 to 8.11.2000. It was stated that on his request a Cover Note was issued by the agent of the appellant and the appellant issued Policy No. 0202419 whereby the above said vehicle, owned by the respondent, was insured for Rs. 40,000/-. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, that on 10.11.1999 he had gone out of Delhi with his family to attend some family function and when he returned on 11.11.1999 he found his motorcycle missing. It was stated that a report about the theft of the vehicle was lodged with the authorities of the Police vide FIR No. 67/1999 at P.S. Mahipalpur on 12.11.1999. Since the vehicle was insured with the appellant, the respondent preferred a claim under the policy with the appellant which was refused by the appellant on the ground that the vehicle had already been stolen at the time when the insurance was taken out by the respondent. As the appellant repudiated the claim of the respondent, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, it was stated that the investigations made by the appellant revealed that the vehicle in question had already been stolen when the insurance cover was taken and, therefore, the appellant was not liable for any deficiency in service.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held the appellant guilty of deficiency in service and on the basis of the above finding has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (the insured amount) within one month of the receipt of that order, failing which, the above said amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of order till payment.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. During the course of arguments, it is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the vehicle in question had already been stolen when the insurance cover was taken, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, deserves to be allowed and the order being impugned in the present proceedings is liable to be set aside.

IN our opinion, the above contention, being advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is devoid of substance in the given facts because it is a matter of common knowledge that before insurance, the vehicle in question is always inspected by the agents/functionaries of the INsurance Company and it is only after inspecting the vehicle in question that the proposal for insurance is accepted by the INsurance Companies. During the course of arguments, we have put this question to the learned Counsel for the appellant also and to our query no satisfactory reply could be given by the learned Counsel for the appellant. IN the presence of the above facts, the presumption is that the vehicle in question must have been inspected by the concerned functionaries of the appellant and then alone the proposal for insurance must have been accepted. IN view of the position explained above no fault can be found with the findings of the learned District Forum. The same, as a matter of fact, suffer from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. No other point is pressed or urged before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. IN view of the above discussion, the above mentioned appeal, filed by the appellant is, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in-limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed in limine.