United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs NIRMAL RAI

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 2.12.2003 in Complaint No. 128/2002 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short), allowing the complaint and directing the appellant/insurer to pay Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant/respondent as well as cost of the complaint.

UNDISPUTABLY, the complainant/respondent No. 1 had purchased motor cycle TVS Sujuki bearing registration No. MP-27 D 6067. It appears that the complainant/respondent No. 1 had given the said motor cycle in gift to complainant/respondent No. 2. According to the averments in the complaint, on 2.12.1999 the said motor cycle was looted by some miscreants after throwing chilli powder in the eyes of the respondent No. 2, while he was returning home after duty. He reported the matter to the police and an offence was registered. It was also averred that the said vehicle was comprehensively insured by the complainants with the appellant/insurer. The complainant, therefore, laid claim with the appellant/insurer for payment of the assured amount of Rs. 35,000/- to them. However, as the appellant did not make payment hence, the complaint was filed before the District Forum.

The complaint was resisted by the appellant/insurer. According to the written version, the incident was not covered by the terms of the policy. It was also averred that the complainants did not furnish the necessary documents to appellant/insurer, hence their claim could not be processed. It was also averred that complaint was time barred.

THE District Forum by the impugned order accepted the claim of the complainants and directed the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainants. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard and the record was perused.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer firstly urged that the complaint was barred by limitation. However, it may be noticed that the incident of loot of the motor cycle occurred on 2.12.1999 and the claim was laid thereafter by the complainants/respondents with the appellant/insurer. THE appellant/insurer by their letter dated 5.9.2000 demanded certain documents including the final report accepted by the CJM regarding the offence, purchase bill, the FIR. Copy of the final report by the police accepted by the CJM, has been filed on record in the complaint case. THE registration certificate as also, copy of the policy demanded by the appellant/insurer have also been filed on record. It, therefore, appears that the complainant substantially complied with the above requirement of the appellant/insurer. However, it does not appear from the record of the complaint case, that the appellant/insurer ever settled the claim of the complainants. From the appellant''s letter dated 5.9.2000, the appellant/insurer had intimated the complainants, that in case they failed to file documents, it would be presumed that the complainants are not interested in pursuing their claim and their claim may have to be dismissed. THE above letter however does not go to show that the claim was in fact repudiated by the appellant/insurer. It may also be noticed that there is no specific averment of the appellant in the above regard in their written version. Since, the appellant has failed to repudiate the claim of the complainants/respondents, it cannot be said that the claim was time barred. It may also be mentioned in the above regard, that though the complainants preferred their claim with the appellant/insurer without delay as it was not settled within reasonable period, the complainants were within their rights to approach the District Forum. THEy could not be expected to wait indefinitely for the appellant/insurer to settle their claim. In fact undue delay in settlement of claim by the appellant/insurer, itself amounts to deficiency in service. In any case it cannot be said that the complaint was premature. So far as the claim of the complainants is concerned, it is clear that it was a case of loot. Section 1 of the policy, clearly state that the company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the motor cycle inter alia by burglary, house breaking or theft as also by malicious act. In the instant case, the incident was forcible taking away the motor cycle by putting chilly powder in the eyes of the complainant No. 2. Clearly the offence as above was much more serious than of theft. Theft would be covered by the said offence. Moreover, the loss was certainly due to malicious act of the miscreants. Hence, the contention of the appellant/insurer that the claim of the complainant/respondent was not covered under the policy was palpably unjustified and ill founded. Learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer also submitted that the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- as awarded by the District Forum was excessive. It may be noticed that in the policy document the value of the vehicle has been put at Rs. 35,000/- and that on that basis the premium was charged by the appellant/insurer. The policy was issued on 15.7.1999. The incident occurred on 2.12.1999. Therefore, it cannot be said that the market value of the vehicle was less than 30,000/-. In the circumstances, compensation of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by the impugned order does not in any manner appear to be excessive and does not call for interference. Accordingly, the above submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer cannot be accepted.

IN view of the above, it is clear that the District Forum rightly awarded compensation to the complainants/respondents. There is no substance in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant/insurer shall bear its own cost and also shall pay that of the complainant/respondent, which is quantified at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). Appeal dismissed.