USHA DEVI Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of details the case of the complainant is that she got her share insured in the residential building which includes th share of 4 storeyed building, th of kitchen building and share of 2 storey building situated at village Kulgam, Kashmir with O. P. at Branch Office Anantnag, Kashmir for an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs. The policy was issued in favour of complainant after collecting premium from her. Property was admittedly got gutted in fire during intervening night of 20/21st May, 1995. Claim was raised. O. P. deputed M/s. Malik and Kuldip Raj Sharma. They assessed the loss at Rs.4,28,400/-. Not only this it has also been admitted that the O. P. approved the claim for the aforementioned amount and issued cheque No.1132378 dated 25.9.1996 for an amount of Rs.4,28,400/- drawn on Jandk Bank, BB Cantt. Srinagar in favour of complainant. Complainant went to collect the money but was told that the amount of the O. P. was attached by Court. Thereafter the complainant approached the O. P. and in the meantime CBI seized the files of O. P. Complainant approached CBI also. CBI returned the file to Sr. Divisional Manager of O. P. on 25.11.1998. CBI sent copy of the letter to the complainant also which is placed on record as Annexure C-III. This all happened in 1998. Thereafter O. P. avoided to issue fresh cheque. O. P. appointed AMS Consultants in April, 2000 to investigate the matter. AMS Consultants reported on 12th July, 2000 that the claim is bogus because the complainant has no insurable interest and there was no such building owned by complainant which was gutted in fire. This is the whole story of the case.

(2.) The O. P. was summoned. He contested the case on the ex parte report of AMS Consultants that complainant has no insurable interest. Evidence was recorded from both sides and the statement of Mr. Watali was also recorded.

(3.) Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the whole record. We feel that O. P. has no justification for appointment of AMS Consultants to investigate the case when the amount of Surveyor was not only approved but cheque was issued to the complainant. It has become the general trend of the Insurance Companies that after scrutinizing the survey report, after approving the claims, they appointed investigator of their choice to reopen the case. Investigators do their job at the back of the complainant as has happened in this case also. Mr. Watali in his cross-examination has admitted that he did not involve the complainant in his investigation nor recorded his statement. He has also admitted that he did not record the statement of the complainant. But even Mr. Watali has in explicit terms admitted that the share which has been insured belonged to complainant's husband R. K. Kaul. In this cross-examination he has purely admitted that this was the joint property which belonged to Kakaji Koul and Nanaji Koul Sons of Badri Nath Koul and Rajinder Koul and Ravinder Kaul Sons of Jaggar Nath Kaul. We have seen the whole record. It is established that the complainant has insured the share of her husband only. The argument of the learned Counsel for the O. Ps. that complainant has no insurable interest is not tenable in law. We have in many a cases held that it is not necessary for the insured to be the owner of the property. He may have any insurable interest for the safeguard of the property. It is established law that the husband and wife vice versa can insure the property of each other because they have got insurable interest in the reservation of each other's property. For these reasons, therefore, complaint is allowed. O. P. is directed to issue fresh cheque for Rs.4,28,400/- with 9 per cent interest after the date the documents were received back by the O. P. from CBI; November, 1998 say 1.12.1998. Rs.2,000/- are also allowed as litigation charges. The whole amount be paid to the complainant within a period of six weeks from today.