NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar dated 7.8.2006 by which the complaint of Swinder Singh, complainant, was partially allowed in the following terms : "In view of the above discussion, we are constrained to hold that opposite party has unjustly and illegally repudiated the just claim of the complainant. We, therefore, partly allowed this complaint and the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,600 to complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of orders; failing which opposite party would be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of its payment. Entire amount would be paid by the opposite party to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the orders by way of bank draft or account payee cheque. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the Record Room."

(2.) Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that a Nokia mobile handset, Model 3660, was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 15,600 on 14.7.2004 and the same was insured with the appellant Insurance Company against theft . The complainant alleged that on 10.10.2004 his mobile phone was removed from his pocket, i.e., it was stolen by some unknown person. A DDR was lodged to that effect with Police Station B Division vide Report No. 19 dated 11.10.2004. When the mobile phone was not recovered, he lodged a claim with the Insurance Company, but the same was repudiated on the ground that in the insurance policy the word is theft of the mobile set and not stolen and since the word stolen is not defined in the Indian Penal Code, therefore, no amount was payable to the complainant.

(3.) This shows the attitude of the Insurance Company while repudiating the claim of a consumer. The Insurance Company also does not say that all the words used in the Insurance Policy must have some meaning or definition in the Indian Penal Code. For the purpose of contract, we would go into the meaning of the words, which we understand in common parlance. If an item is insured against theft and the consumer uses the word in the DDR or in his claim petition that the same had been stolen, the effect is the same. We do not find much difference in theft and stealing. Theft, according to us, is the net result of stealing. When a thing is stolen from somebody s possession, we would understand that a theft has taken place. In these circumstances, the District Forum was right in observing that the repudiation of the claim was not well based.