NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. MUKESH SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the respondent is that he had taken household policy of insurance of jewellery including Rolex watch, which was effective from 13.3.96 to 12.9.97. He was also having similar policy from 12.9.95 to 11.9.96. On 13.3.96, he had removed Rolex watch at night and kept it in the drawer, but in the morning he found that the said watch was missing. One of his servants was also missing and he lodged police report No.378/96 with Greater Kailash -1 Police Station, New Delhi on 16.6.96. However, he lodged a complaint regarding loss of the said watch with the present petitioner in the month of March, 1997. The present petitioner appointed surveyor who submitted his report. However, his claim was not settled and he filed complaint with the Consumer Forum claiming Rs.2,40,000 for the Rolex watch with interest as also compensation of Rs.50,000 besides cost of Rs.22,000.

(2.) THE plea taken by the present petitioner was that the respondent had obtained policy in question fraudulently by giving cheque dated 13.9.96 and obtained a back dated receipt No.0453447 dated 13.9.96. The present petitioner also took the plea that though the theft had taken place on 13/14.9.96, the present respondent remained silent for 2 days as the watch had no valid policy cover for the same and lodged the complaint with the police only on 16.9.96. The petitioner also opposed the claim of the complainant respondent that the respondent did not inform the petitioner about the loss in terms of clause 5(b) of the terms and conditions of the said policy and reported the matter only after 6 months.

(3.) THE Consumer Forum found that if there was any irregularity in issuing the policy, it was on the part of the officer of the petitioner who had issued the receipt dated 13.9.96. It was further held that the theft had not been disputed and the police after investigation had concluded that Pradeep Yadav, the domestic servant of the claimant, who could not be traced and was declared pro -claimed offender, had committed the theft. The delay of 6 months in lodging the complaint with the petitioner was of no consequences since the matter had been reported to the police on 16.9.96. Relying upon the report of the surveyor appointed by the petitioner, the District forum awarded a sum of Rs 1,33,563 being the purchase value of the watch of the respondent claimant. It was held that 5% deduction made by the surveyor by recommending payment of Rs.1,06,850 was obviously wrong. Thus the claim was allowed with interest of 10% w.e.f.11.2.98, the date of report of surveyor since the complainant himself was responsible for delay because he lodged the claim 6 months after the thefts, besides the cost of Rs.2,000.