ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs PARVESH CHANDER CHADHA

-THIS revision is directed against the order dated 7. 12. 2004 of State Commission, Delhi dismissing appeal against the order dated 14. 7. 2000 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party-Insurance Co. was directed to settle the claim of the respondent/complainant on non-standard basis at 75% of the amount of loss of Rs. 1,85,000 along with interest @ 12% p. a. from 20. 7. 1995.

CAR bearing registration No. DL-2c-E-9425 of the respondent was insured with the petitioner for the period from 17. 1. 1995 to 16. 1. 1996 for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000. It was alleged that between 18-20th January, 1995 the car was stolen from outside the house of the respondent when he had gone out of station along with his family members. On 20. 1. 1995, FIR was lodged with the concerned Police Station. Insurance Co. was also stated to have been intimated of theft by the petitioner. On claim being repudiated by the letter dated 20. 7. 1995, the petitioner filed complaint which on contest was disposed of by the District Forum by the order dated 10. 12. 1998 with direction to the Insurance Co. to re-consider the claim of the respondent. In compliance of the order dated 10. 12. 1998 matter was re-examined by the Insurance Company and the claim was again repudiated by the letter dated 12. 3. 1999 on ground of violation of condition No. 1 of the Policy. Thereafter, fresh Complaint Case No. 2406 of 1999 was filed challenging the repudiation of the claim by the respondent which on contest was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noticed above and against Forum''s order, the petitioner''s appeal was dismissed in terms of the order under challenge by the State Commission. Submission advanced by Mr. P. K. Seth for the petitioner Insurance Company was mainly two fold,- (i) car was stolen even before the policy was purchased by the respondent, and (ii) Insurance Co. was intimated of the theft by the letter dated 22. 5. 1995 which was received in the office of the Insurance Company on 8. 6. 1995 and the claim was thus validly repudiated being in violation of condition No. 1 of the policy which provides that Insurance Co. is to be informed of the theft in writing immediately after occurring of theft. In support of the first limb of submission, it was pointed out that on 17. 1. 1995 Rajinder Kumar, Development Officer who insured the car in question, had issued three cover notes and though the cash premium collected in respect of remaining two cover notes was deposited on 17. 1. 1995 but the premium pertaining to the car in question was deposited on 17. 1. 1995 but the premium pertaining to the car in question was deposited with the Insurance Co. on 18. 1. 1995. Written version filed by the Insurance Company (copy at pages 37 to 44) would show that the plea of policy having been obtained by playing fruad by the respondent has not been specifically taken therein. Copy of the Investigator''s report dated 12. 6. 1999 filed on 23. 10. 2007 by the Insurance Company would indicate that the said Devleopment Officer in his written statement had stated that he had inspected the car in question on 17. 1. 1995 before the cover note was issued. Considering this stand of the Development Officer as also absence of plea to the said effect in the written version the submission at (i) above is repelled being devoid of any merit.

Coming to the later limb of submission, though in Para No. 6 of the complaint the respondent has alleged that Rajender Singh Panwar, Development Officer had visited his place on 20. 1. 1995 and the copy of FIR was given to him but this plea has not been accepted by the District Forum. Moreover, in the affidavit filed on 23. 10. 2007 by the Insurance Company, the said Development Officer has denied of having visited the respondent''s place on 21. 1. 1995 and having collected any writing or he having received any intimation of theft from the respondent on that date. As may be seen from the order of District Forum on ground of delay of about 4 months in informing of the theft of car by the respondent, it has allowed the claim to be paid on non-standard basis at 75%. Photocopy of the FIR lodged by the respondent on 20. 1. 1995, was submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company at the time of arguments. In its said report the Investigator on investigation had also found that the car in question having been stolen sometime on 17. 1. 1995 but not as claimed by the insured. He also found that the case has been closed by the police. Thus, the theft of the car is established. In our view, District Forum had rightly allowed the claim to be settled on non-standard basis at 75% as per the own Guidelines of the Insurance Company with interest and the State Commission has also rightly dismissed the appeal against Forum''s order. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting inteference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ACCORDINGLY, revision is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,500 to the respondent. Revision Petition dismissed.