PRADEEP MEHTA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Only question involved in this appeal is, whether the correction carried out by Shri Gian Chand, agent of the respondent in the cover note, Annexure C.I., was done in a bonafide and regular manner before the fire incident or after it. In case, it is held that the correction was carried out in Annexure C.I. showing the insured residence of the appellant at Village Lakhawati prior to the date of fire, this appeal has to be allowed and if it is held to be having been done after the fire incident, then the consequence is obvious.

(2.) IT is not in dispute between the parties that the appellant had obtained insurance cover in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - of his house. A perusal of Annexure C.I, cover note shows that it was in respect of the residence of the respondent situated at Village Majhotli, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. It was obtained on 12.2.1999 and the fire incident in this case causing damage to the house is of 24.3.1999. Despite receipt of intimation regarding the fire incident, claim was not settled, complaint was filed by the appellant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent before the District Forum below. As per allegations made in this complaint, appellant had got his house at village Lakhawati insured and he had given for correspondence address of his village Majholti. In the cover note according to the appellant, his insured house was shown at village Mahjolti instead of Lakhawati. When this fact came to his notice, he immediately informed the Development Officer -Shri Gian Chand who had issued the same. He carried out correction in the cover note, Annexure C.I, under his signatures' and thus described house at Village Lakhawati being insured instead of the house situate at village Majholti, as was originally mentioned in the cover note. This was a case of mistake. Investigator was appointed by the respondent. Regarding fire incident, F.I.R. was also lodged at Police Station, Nerva. In addition to this factum of house having been damaged due to fire was also confirmed by Tehsildar, Chopal, vide Annexure C.III.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we think it necessary to notice the stand of the respondent -Insurance Company regarding correction in the cover note. According to the respondent, it was never approached by the appellant for correction in the cover note thereby showing the house at Village Lakhawati being insured and not at Village Majholti as was originally mentioned in the cover note. When the fact of unauthorized change came to its notice, higher authorities were informed who initiated disciplinary action against Shri Gian Chand, Development Officer. He was found guilty of having made unauthorized change showing the house at Village Lakhawati instead of Majholti as originally shown in the cover note, Annexure C.I. Vide Annexure R.1, penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage was inflicted upon him, and vide Annexure R.2, penalty of 'censure' was imposed upon Mr. Narosh Chand Nagraik, Senior Assistant, Divisional Office, Shimla. As per stand of the respondent in their reply; he (Mr. Naresh Chand Nagraik) was an accomplice of the Development Officer Shri Gian Chand.