NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. BHAJAN SINGH BAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 26.11.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) Brief facts stated in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) got insured one Maruti Esteem LX car Model-2000 with the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) vide cover note dated 6.10.2000 covering the period from 6.10.2000 to 5.10.2001. The car was stolen on 1.4.2001 in the area of Karol Bagh. New Delhi, FIR No.83/2001 was lodged in the Police Station, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The complainant lodged claim with the appellant No.1 (opposite party No.1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No.1) on 4.4.2001 and also supplied all necessary documents. The complainant had also delivered untraced report as issued by ACP of Desh Bandhu Pupta Road Police Station. Opposite parties failed to settle the claim, which according to the complainant was a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. A prayer was made by the complainant that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.4,80,000/- with interest and compensation.

(3.) Opposite parties filed reply on 18.3.2002. During the pendency of the case the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties and an amendment in the written reply was sought for. The case of the opposite parties as contained in the amended reply was that neither copy of FIR was supplied to the opposite parties nor the date of FIR was mentioned in the complaint. It was further pleaded that as per record of the opposite parties, copy of untraced report had not been supplied so far to the opposite parties although there was specific provision that all the documents should be supplied to the opposite parties. The next plea taken was that the value of Rs.4,80,000/- as mentioned was not the sum insured, but was only estimated sum insured as per option of the insured and in case of total loss, the opposit parties were liable to pay market value or the sum insured, whichever was lesser. It was then stated in the written statement that it was incumbent upon the insured to give letter of authority to the Police Department confirming that in case the vehicle was recovered, the same was the property of the opposite party-Insurance Company and they had no objection for delivering the same Registration Certificate had also to be transferred in the name of the opposite party-Insurance Company. Second set of duplicate keys of the vehicle was also supposed to be deposited by the complainant. It was next pleaded that the claim of the complainant had been repudiated by the Competent Authority in the light of the report of the investigator. Ultimately, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum. Hence this appeal.