UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs ANIL SEHGAL

THIS is an appeal by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Ludhiana against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'') dated 20.4.2005, by which the complaint of the complainant (respondent in this appeal) was allowed as follows : ''7. In this case, the DDR was got recorded by the complainant side and if the police had not registered the formal FIR that was not fault of the complainant. In this case, the respondent had got investigated the matter through their investigator. The story of theft was found true according to reports Exs. R1 and R2 and Surveyor and Assessor of the respondent had assessed Rs. 49,581 and that amount is mentioned in the affidavit Ex. OP -A. Therefore, respondents are bound to pay this amount to the complainant. 8. As such, complaint is allowed and respondent is directed to pay this amount within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order failing which they will have to pay 6% interest till payment from the date of present order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.''

HENCE the present appeal by the Insurance Company. Respondent in this appeal, i.e., Anil Sehgal, had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that he had purchased a policy with regard to coverage of theft of jewellery and paid the premium for the same. His further allegation was that his son Vikram Sehgal had gone to attend the marriage of his wifes cousin along with his wife. During the marriage, the purse of daughter -in -law Pooja Sehgal was stolen which contained Rs. 6,000 cash, one diamond ring worth Rs. 35,000, 4 bangles worth Rs. 16,000, one golden chain weighing 1 and 1/2 Tola worth Rs. 9,000. The report was lodged with the police. The complainant loged the claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated only on the ground that FIR had not been registered. It was alleged in the complaint that the police was duly informed.

THE opposite party, i.e., United India Insurance Company Ltd., contested the complaint. The Insurance Company on receiving the information regarding the alleged loss, engaged the services of National Detective and Consultancy Services, Jalandhar to investigate the matter. After investigation report was submitted by the investigating agency that as per the version of management of the said Hotel no loss of purse containing jewellery and cash and taken place in their hotel though a DDR dated 29.12.2000 instead of FIR regarding the loss/theft had been recorded on the written application of Vikram Sehgal in Police Post, Sector 6, Panchkula. It was also averred that there was different version given by Vikram Sehgal and his wife Pooja and the factum of their lack of interest in the tracing of the alleged lost articles by simply getting a DDR instead of an FIR recorded.

DURING the course of argument before the District Forum, the Insurance Company also took up a plea that the complainant had been insured against theft of jewellery etc. and in this case the loss of jewellery was of his daugher -in -law. After appreciating the evidence adduced on the record by the parties and the arguments, the District Forum allowed the complaint as aforesaid.

BEFORE us again the same point has been urged that no FIR had been got recorded by the complainant. As held by the District Forum, which we hereby affirm, the duty of the person is to inform the police of the alleged offence (in this case the theft). Whether the police records a DDR or records an FIR, it is the job of the police. The victims job is only to inform the police about the crime. In this case, the day the theft took place, DDR was got lodged. If FIR is not recorded, it is no fault of the victim. If the police does not take any action or cannot trace the stolen property of the victim, the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim on that count. When insurance is done it is done regarding the jewellery which is lying in a particular house, which may include the jewellery of the insureds wife, daughter -in -law, who are staying with him. For example, even if a person is not staying with the insured and it is proved that at a given time the jewellery of a person was in the custody of the insured and the same is stolen, the Insurance Company would still be liable. It is not the case of Insurance Company that the son and daughter -in -law of the insured was not part and parcel of the household at the time the alleged theft of jewellery and cash took place.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.