NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY judgment and order dated 21.1.2003 the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, allowed Appeal No.373 of 2002 filed by the Complainant and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.70,380/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till the date of realization. It also directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation due to deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. There is no dispute that a Surveyor has assessed the loss, and on the basis of the loss assessed by the Surveyor the impugned order is passed.

(2.) HOWEVER , the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the Complainant has obtained cover note in question covering the risk with effect from 18th September, 1992 to 17th September, 1993 for the vehicle after the vehicle met with accident on 19th September, 1992. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the State Commission is not justified. It is his contention that the Complainant is a party to the fraud along with its agent or the Development Officer who issued the cover note. Therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim.

(3.) IN our view, from the aforesaid Vigilance Officer"s report, it appears that the deficiency on the part of the Development Officer was with regard to not following the administrative norms before issuing the cover note after the office hours. Further, the Development Officer who has issued the cover note, specifically stated that the cover note was issued on 18.9.1992 after inspecting the vehicle in question. At the time of inspection of the vehicle, one Senior Officer, of the Insurance Company, namely, Shri Singh was also present. Considering the aforesaid statement of the Development Officer and findings recorded by the Vigilance Officer, it is apparent that the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the cover note was issued by its Development Officer subsequent to the accident. Not following the administrative norms by the Development Officer would not vitiate the insurance cover/ cover-note. The State Commission, therefore, rightly observed that merely, because the cover note was not found in the vehicle at the time of accident, it could not be a ground for repudiating the claim. Even the Surveyor has not specifically stated that the cover note was not genuine. Hence, from the aforesaid facts it cannot be said that the State Commission committed any error in directing the Insurance Company to reimburse the Complainant for the loss suffered by him, as assessed by the Surveyor. In the result, the Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.