NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SUDHIR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of the orderdated 16.11.2000 passed by the District Forum whereby the appellant was directed to pay to the respondent Rs.1,95,000/- being the cost of the Ultrasound machine which had been stolen on 19.1.1999 along with interest @ 15% besides cost of Rs.2,000/-.

(2.) Admittedly the appellant issued an insurance cover note in respect of the respondent's ultrasound machine for an insurance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- after receiving the premium of Rs.7,891/-. The insurance was against the theft of the machine as well as thereof viz., probe and thermal printer. The machine was stolen on 19.1.1999 in respect of which an intimation was sent to appellant. According to the respondent the value of the said machine was Rs.1,95,000/- whereas the two Surveyors appointed by the appellant assessed the loss at Rs.81,000/- and Rs.51,000/- respectively.

(3.) Though the Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the place and location of the machine was not mentioned in the proposal form whereas the place of location in the insurance cover is shown as 874, Krishi Apartments, Vikaspuri, New Delhi but the police report lodged by the respondent shows that the part was stolen from Mata Chanan Devi hospital. But we find that this contention is of no consequence firstly because the machine was inspected at Mata Chanan Devi hospital before insurance and secondly that the place of location of said machine is of no consequence for the purpose of insurance against theft or loss on any other count. The insurance is relevant for the machine and not the place or location. Moreover the appellant had also charged enhanced rate of payment @ 2.5% instead of 1.05% on account of the machine being portable machine.