NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. J K MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -this appeal is directed against order dated 21.9.2002, passed by District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.87/2002 entitled Shri J. K. Mittal V/s. National Insurance Company Limited.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent Shri J. K. Mittal had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant on the ground that the respondent had purchased a Maruti Car, bearing Registration No. DL-7c-B-6513 from M/s. Bagga Link Motors Limited on 29.9.2001 which was duly insured with the appellant through its Preet Vihar Branch for Rs.2,65,952/- vide Cover Note No.0855105. The delivery of the above said car was, however, taken on 18.10.2001. The said car was stolen on 19.11.2001 i. e. after one month of delivery for which the respondent had lodged a complaint with the concerned Police Station but the F. I. R. was registered on 20.11.2001. On the same day the respondent had informed the appellant insurance company and had also lodged his claim with it after depositing all the relevant documents. Thereafter the respondent had also submitted the non-traceable report of the police on 24.12.2001. However, despite having fulfilled all the formalities the appellant had failed to settle the claim of the respondent and as such the respondent had prayed for directions to the appellant to pay the entire insured amount of Rs.2,65,952/- with interest @ 18% p. a. from the date of lodging of the claim till payment, together with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant, as well as cost of litigation.

(3.) The O. P. in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum had taken the defence that on receiving the claim of the respondent the appellant had immediately appointed Shri. P. T. Thomas as Investigator and M/s. Darbari Lal Puri and Sons as Surveyor and Loss Assessor to assess the loss incurred on account of theft of the car. Thereafter immediately on receipt of the respective reports from the aforesaid Investigator and Assessor, the appellant had approved the claim of the respondent for Rs.2,45,000/- subject to the compliance of certain conditions, including handing over of the original keys and the Registration Certificate of the stolen car to the appellant. A communication in this regard was duly addressed to the respondent vide letter dated 22.1.2002. However, the complainant refused to accept the said amount and insisted on the payment of full insured value of the car. It was, therefore, stated by the appellants in its reply/written version that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and as such the complaint, filed by the respondent, was liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.