DALIP KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by Dalip Kumar, complainant challenging order of District Forum, Jalandhar dated April 23,1997 relegating him to the Civil Court. Dalip Kumar claiming himself to be owner of Maruti Van No. HIU-4900, got it insured from National Insurance Co. Ltd. in the sum of Rs. one lakh on August 23,1991 for a year. The van was stated to have been stolen on February 13,1992 and the police was informed. A claim was made before the Insurance Company, which was rejected on March 7,1994 that he approached the District Forum with the complaint on March 2, 1995 claiming insured amount. The Insurance Company contested the complaint and submitted its version. The claim was stated to be barred by time. A complicated question of ownership of the vehicle was involved for which proper remedy was in the Civil Court. Issuance of the policy in the name of Dalip Kumar was not denied. It was alleged that the complainant was not holding a valid driving licence. No FIR was lodged regarding the theft, as no theft in fact had taken place. The claim was rightly rejected. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents and on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.

(2.) The order of the Insurance Company rejecting the claim is contained in the letter dated March 7, 1994. (page 57 of the record of the District Forum ). The only ground mentioned therein for declining the claim is that no case was registered with the police, in connection with the snatching of the van aforesaid. Copy of the FIR No.19 registered at Police Station Makodar is at page 49. of the record. It was registered on the statement of Sudesh Kumar. The gist of the statement is to the effect that some unidentified persons had entered into his house and stolen his ornaments etc. In the proceedings taken on this FIR as recorded thereon the Investigating Officer has recorded a note that Dalip Kumar, son of Ram Chand gave his statement regarding snatching of his van HIU-4900 and the circumstances were tallying with the facts given in the FIR and alongwith the same, the matter would be investigated. What was required of the complainant was to bring it to the notice of the police the fact of theft of his van. It was not within his hands either to direct the police to register the case regularly or to investigate it in the chain of other cases registered. Thus merely on the ground that case was not registered at the instance of the complainant Dalip Kumar, the repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company was arbitrarily.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that if given opportunity the report of the investigation conducted by the Insurance Company can be placed on the record. He has read over the aforesaid report and we find that the basis of the report is non-registration of the case on the statement of Dalip Kumar by the police and conclusion was thus arrived at that no theft had taken place of the van. Production of this report will not change the decision of the case. As already observed above as to whether the police was able to recover the stolen property or not or whether the case was registered independently or not was not in the hands of the complainant. The complainant's statement was recorded during investigation of the complaint of Sudesh Kumar and he had informed the police about the theft of his vehicle. If ultimately the police had failed to recover the van and filed the case as untraced, it will have no effect on his right to claim the insured amount.