NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs K.R. BANSAL

FEELING aggrieved against judgment and order dated 2.4.2004 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in complaint Case No. 191 of 2003 filed by the respondent Shri R.K. Bansal, Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Ahmedgarh Mandi, District Ludhiana, the O.P.-New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office at S.C.O. No. 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through Shri Anil Chawla, Administrative Officer filed this appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant raised two fold submissions.

IN the first place, he submitted that the respondent/complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance bearing No. 353000/31/00/14904 insuring Matiz Car No. Ch-03A-9803 inasmuch as the Matiz car was not properly looked after and it was left with doors open in the night as a result of which electronic gadgets worth Rs. 70,600/- were lost on account of theft. The claim regarding the payment of loss of Rs. 70,600/- vide Claim No. 31/0119 was repudiated by the appellant-New INdia Assurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as INsurance Company) on the ground of violation of the aforesaid terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. In the second and the last place, it was contended that the respondent/complainant failed to prove as a fact that he had spent a sum of Rs. 70,600/- for the installation of electronic gadgets in the insured vehicle.

The learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his first contention relied on the report of the Surveyor and the affidavit of Shri Amarjeet Singh, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, which was sworn on 18.11.2003 and the averments of paras 1 to 8 of the said affidavit, which contained only eight paragraphs were verified to be true and correct to his knowledge as verified from the office record. It may be pointed out that Shri Amarjeet Singh, Divisional Manager did not depose in the affidavit filed by way of evidence that he had himself conducted any survey or investigation and examined the claim filed under the policy of insurance. The averments made in para 7 of his affidavit reads as under: "7. That the claim has been repudiated after examining the case of the complainant in detail and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant. A copy of the terms and conditions of the policy is already attached as Annexure R-1 and report of Surveyor is attached as Annexure R-2."

IT may be mentioned that in para 7, quoted above, due to misapprehension, the deponent Shri Amarjeet Singh, Divisional Manager referred to the fact that "there is no deficiency in service on the part of the complainant," which as a matter of fact should have referred to the O.Ps. i.e., the Insurance Company. IT is significant to find that the Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor namely Shri R.S. Arora did not file his own affidavit in support of his report and did not prove as a fact that the car was placed in the night unattended and in an open condition. Besides this, in Appendix (A), Shri R.S. Arora, Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor gave the details of the assessment of the parts and as against the claim of Rs. 70,600/-, he assessed the claim at Rs. 40,450/- on the ground that there was no payment receipt on record and hence, he had treated the equipments purchased by the insured as second hand except Item Nos. 1 and 2, which were paid through credit card. These Item Nos. 1 and 2 are Stereo (Pioneer) costing Rs. 7,000/- and two speakers (Pioneer) costing Rs. 3,300/- (total Rs. 10,300/-). The presumption about the other parts being second hand in the absence of the receipt is not a presumption, which could be drawn in the absence of the receipt and particularly when the complainant had filed his affidavit and also the affidavit of one Surveyor and Loss Assessor namely Shri R.P. Singla dated 25.3.2001, which according to the respondent/complainant are prepared as per instructions issued by the Insurance Company. The First Information Report lodged about the occurrence of theft in the form of photocopy was filed as Annexure C-3, wherein these items, which were lost were described.

THE averment regarding Shri R.P. Singla having been instructed to inspect the vehicle for verifying the parts has been specifically and categorically denied in para 4 of the reply on merit as well as in para 3 of the affidavit of Shri Amarjeet Singh, Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company. The District Forum dealt with the evidence led before it and held that the report of Shri R.P. Singla could not be taken into consideration as the complainant failed to prove that the same was done at the instance of Insurance Company but even after excluding the report, it was held that the Insurance Company while issuing the policy of insurance (Annexure C-1) assessed the value of the electrical accessories including also electronic accessories and the Insurance Company charged the premium accordingly and they cannot be allowed to go back on their promise in the insurance policy. The District Forum also referred to the report of Shri R.S. Arora who assessed the loss at Rs. 40,450/- and placed reliance on the report of the Surveyor. The District Forum held that the repudiation of the claim by the appellant-Insurance Company amounted to deficiency in service. Resultantly, the complaint was partly allowed and the appellant/O.Ps. were directed to pay Rs. 40,450/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from 22.7.2002 with payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation. After carefully considering the material placed on record, we find that the District Forum has rightly directed the appellant/O.P.s to pay to the complainant/respondent the amount assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor Shri R.S. Arora i.e., Rs. 40,450/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 22.7.2002 till payment. The litigation costs have also been properly assessed by the District Forum.

RESULTANTLY, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs of appeal.

COPIES of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.