PRABHAWATI RAINA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in this case is a migrant from Kashmir Valley. She owned a two -storeyed house with Attic in village Chak Rajwali, Dooru, Anantnag. The said house alongwith attic had been insured with the O.Ps. under Insurance Policy No. 110100589. The date of commencement of policy was 21.9.1999 and had to expire on 20.9.2000. It was "Fire Policy B" and the risk covered was in the amount of Rs.4.00 lakh. Due to spurt in militancy related activities in the year 1990 she was forced to leave her home and hearth and was forced to live in a migrant camp known as Batal Ballian, Udhampur. For the first time she came to know about the destruction of her house in the month of August 2000 and immediately raised claim with the O.Ps. The claim was not registered on the pretext that the information had not been supported with a copy of the FIR regarding the alleged incident. With great efforts, on 17.8.2001 the complainant got a copy of the FIR from the concerned Police Station. Second time application was sent which was accompanied by a copy of the FIR regarding the occurrence. The claim was not accepted on the plea that there was a delay of 20 months which caused violation of Clause 4 of the contract of Insurance Policy. According to this clause, the information should have been given within 15 days. Representation was made for the view of the decision but it bore no fruit. The review application was dismissed vide order attached as Annexure 'G'. Finally, on 25.2.2003, the complainant lodged the complaint wherein compensation for the total loss of the insured house and attic in the sum of Rs. 4.00 lakh was claimed alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of loss till its final payment is made. For mental and physical torture, compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 was claimed. It is averred in the complaint that cause of action had partly arisen on 17.2.2001 when the proof of loss caused to the insured property was furnished to the O.Ps. and finally on 10.9.2002 when despite the availability of cogent proof, the claim was rejected.

(2.) THE O.Ps. in their written version have admitted the receipt of information on 17.8.2001 of the alleged loss but have pleaded that there was an unexplained delay of 20 months, and that the complainant had violated condition No. 4 of the Insurance Policy. Though it was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy yet the O.Ps. deputed investigator namely, Mr. R.N. Tikoo to investigate the matter who intimated that since the loss had occurred 7 years back, it could not be assessed.

(3.) IN support of the complaint, the complainant herself appeared as a witness by filing her affidavit; and was cross -examined. On behalf of the O.Ps. Mr. M.K. Zutshi, Asstt. Divisional Manager has deposed on affidavit and he too was cross -examined. Besides him, Mr. R.N. Tikoo investigator has also appeared in the witness box.