ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NARESHKUMAR BABULAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 7th December, 2000 passed by the learned Sabarkantha District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Himatnagar in Complaint No.342/1999 directing the opponent No.2 Insurance Company to pay to the complainant No.2 the value of the motorcycle in question i. e. Rs.31,500/- with interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of complaint till payment.

(2.) It was the complainant's case before the learned Forum that the motorcycle in question was stolen on 12th November, 1998 during the period of insurance taken by the complainants from the opponent No.2 Insurance Company. The opponent No.2 Insurance Company resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that the motorcycle was purchased by complainant No.1 in the name of complainant No.2, but the complainant No.2 did not disclose the fact before the opponent Insurance Company that complainant No.2 was Benami owner and the complainant No.1 was the real owner of the vehicle in question and, therefore, the complainants were not entitled to the claim. However, the Surveyor gave the evaluation report in the sum of Rs.31,500/- for the lost motorcycle. The learned Forum, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the opponent No.2 Insurance Company cannot escape its liability on the alleged ground that the complainant No.2 did not disclose the fact that the complainant No.1 was the real owner of the vehicle in question. As a matter of fact the complainant No.1 was very much a party before the learned Forum. Under such circumstances the learned Forum came to the conclusion that there was clear deficiency on the part of the opponent No.2 Insurance Company in not sanctioning the surveyed amount in favour of the complainants/complainant No.2 in any case. Learned Forum, therefore, directed the opponent No.2 Insurance Company to pay to the complainant No.2 the amount as per the impugned order.

(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing before this Commission no one has remained present for the original opponent No.2 Insurance Company (appellant herein ). No one has also remained present for the original complainant No.1. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal. We find that there was no substance in the defence taken by the opponent Insurance Company about the alleged non-disclosure of the real owner of the motorcycle in question when the recorded owner was a party to the complaint as well as a party to the contract of insurance. There was no reason for the opponent No.2 Insurance Company in not according/sanctioning the claim in favour of the insured (complainant No.2 ).