VIJAY SHARMA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy between the parties is, whether the alleged damaged printer is having insurable interest, or not?

(2.) BRIEF facts of the complaint are that the complainant being the proprietor and Chief Editor of a newspaper known as State Samachar having its office at 249 -B, Last Morh, Sarwal Jammu got the insurance of the electronic and printing equipments installed at his office for an amount of Rs. 2,72,000 from OP and in this regard premium of Rs. 2,720 was paid to OP. Before the insurance of the articles / equipments, the Development Officer of the OP advised the complainant to get the inspection note from a duly licensed Surveyor on the panel of the OP. On the advice of the Surveyor of the Insurance Company, the services of a panel Surveyor namely Ajay Mathoo of Sai Consultants were sought on 30.8.2006 who after proper inspection of the articles to be insured , prepared the list and submitted one copy to the Insurance Company besides the complainant. The electronic equipments were insured vide Policy No. 44/2007/47/11. During the subsistence of insurance policy, HP Laser Printer 8000 was damaged due to fluctuation of light on 7.5.2007 and an intimation was conveyed to the Insurance Company, who deputed Surveyor namely K.B.N, and Co. for the assessment of loss of the insured article. Despite , completion of all the formalities, the claim of the complainant was delayed unnecessarily either on one pretext or the other. Compelled by the circumstances, the complainant approached the higher authorities of the OP. Finally the claim of the complainant was turned downby the OP on vague assertions. The act of the OP for the rejection of genuine claim of complainant is arbitrary and unsustainable under law. The cost of the insured printer is of Rs. 1,25,000 and the premium for the insurance of the said article is paid to the OP, who is morally as well as contractually under an obligation to indemnify the complainant for the insured amount.

(3.) AFTER service, OP appeared and filed written version inter alia rejecting the claim of complainant on the averments that alleged HP Printer was never insured by the OP. The complainant was also directed to produce original -bill of the said printer. On the production of the bill by the complainant, it was found that a fictitious and fabricated bill was produced by the complainant. No such shop as depicted in the bill was traceable. It is further submitted that there was no such inspection from the Development Officer for the inspection of the electronic equipments through a panel Surveyor. The list prepared by the complainant is fabricated one and cannot be relied upon. The alleged list is a tampered one with the connivance of some staff member of the company. Though HP Laser Printer 8000 was not insured with the OP but still on the intimation of the damage to the said printer, the Insurance Company deputed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The bill produced by the complainant with regard to the purchase of the said printer was not containing the CSD and GSD Nos. and moreover it was having some over writing. In brief the insurance of the HP Laser Printer 8000 is denied by the OP. Both the parties were directed to file evidence on affidavits and the same is on record.