NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. RAJA GOGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed by the appellants under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 30th May, 2000, passed by District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No.293/1999 - entitled Shri Raja Gogia V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Raja Gogia, had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act, in the District Forum, averring therein that he got his Maruti Van insured with the appellants on 14th July, 1997 at 9.30 p. m. and had issued a blank cheque towards payment of premium in respect of the insurance taken by him. It was stated that next morning i. e. , on 15th July, 1997 at about 6.30 a. m. he noticed that his Maruti Van had been stolen. It was stated that about the theft of the vehicle in question the Authorities of the police were informed and a claim under the policy was preferred with the appellants. It was stated that on 18th July, 1997 he was informed by the appellants that his insurance policy had been cancelled and his file had been closed. The respondent got a notice served on the appellants, but there was no response to the same. Consequently, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum under Sec.12 of the Act.

(2.) The claim of the respondent, in the District Forum, was resisted by the appellants. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellants, certain preliminary objections were taken by the appellants with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, filed by the respondent, before a redressal agency, established under the Act. On merits it was stated that there was no valid contract of insurance in existence between the parties on the date when the theft of the vehicle took place. It was also contended in the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellants that the respondent was not a 'consumer' as defined in Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act. It was stated that the insurance of the vehicle in question, taken by the respondent had expired on 26th March, 1997, and thereafter, the respondent visited the Basant Lok Branch of the appellant on 14th July, 1997 and requested for the insurance of his Maruti Van. It was stated that the respondent had tendered a cheque for Rs.3,668/- towards premium and a receipt was issued to the respondent, subject to realization of the cheque. It was stated that on a scrutiny, the cheque was found to be defective as the amount in words mentioned in the cheque differed from the amount given in figures. It was stated that the appellants found that the cheque of the respondent could not be encashed and, therefore, the receipt issued against the cheque was cancelled, and the vehicle in question was not covered till fresh remittance was made in cash or through demand draft. It was stated that the appellants could not assume risk until unless the premium was received from the respondent and as the appellants had not received any payment towards premium from the respondent, the appellants were not liable to indemnify for any loss. It was stated that the respondent was not entitled to any relief and the complaint, filed by him, was liable to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and on the basis of the above finding, has directed the appellants to pay to the respondent the amount of insurance, amounting to Rs.84,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of theft i. e.15th July, 1997 till payment, besides a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.