NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. ABDUL QADEER NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this revision petition order dated 13.5.2005 passed by learned Divisional Forum, Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred as Forum) has been challenged. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed the complaint in the Forum on 19.11.2001 with the allegations that during the currency of the insurance policy his insured house situated in village Aharbal was gutted in fire on 30.4.1998. The indemnification in the sum of Rs. 3.00 lakh and compensation for an amount of Rs. 1.50 lakh was claimed. The claim was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the plea that the respondent had not intimated the petitioner about the loss and it was also denied that he had prayed for the appointment of any Surveyor. In support of the complaint, complainant s son namely, Mr. A.H. Naik, Advocate has appeared as a witness and stated that when he received information about the burning of his father s house he along with his agent visited the spot and found windows, doors, etc. missing . Fixtures were also removed and incident was reported in the police on 2.5.1998. Mr. Qazi Ali Mohd., clerk of the witness A.H. Naik has also supported this version. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Asstt. Branch Manager has appeared as a witness and stated that in the year 1998 he was assigned the job of dealing with the claims and receipt of intimation about the losses. That during his tenure no intimation letter was received. He has also brought the record with him and in the record no intimation regarding the alleged loss was registered. He repelled the contention of Mr. A. H. Naik, witness of the respondent by stating that Mohd. Abbas who was Development Officer could not submit the required information if any he had received on behalf of the insured. He totally denied that intimation had been given but that was not recorded in the relevant register. The learned Forum after the appraisal of the evidence has believed the evidence of Mr. A.H. Naik that he himself had intimated the petitioner regarding the damage caused to the insured premises. Inference was also drawn regarding the alleged loss on the premise that when the insurance policy was not denied then the insured would not fail to intimate the insurer about the loss caused to the property. The Forum has even accepted the contention that even an oral intimation was sufficient about the loss. Since, there was no assessment made in accordance with the prescribed procedure, so the Forum did not place any reliance on the estimate of loss which have been assessed by the concerned JE, but had directed for the appointment of a Surveyor who can be the authorized expert under the law to make the assessment of the alleged loss. The direction was given to the petitioner for the appointment of a Surveyor and submission of his report within one month.

(2.) THE order has been challenged through the medium of the revision petition on the following grounds:

(3.) HEARD the arguments.