An insurance company cannot reject a claim based on the insured's police statements. The surveyor's conduct in demanding money and making adverse remarks against the complainant amounted to harassment.

Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President — This is a complaint in which allegations are made regarding the deficiency in the service of opposite party. Admitted facts are that complainant had insured his vehicle bearing No. MHV-7292 with the opposite party. The last renewed Insurance Policy was from 27.4.1989 to 26.4.1990. It is alleged by the complainant that on 8.5.1989, when he was proceedings to Nagpur with luggage, he noticed that the axle of the vehicle was damaged. He locked the vehicle and went to Amaravati to fetch the mechanic. Complainant alleged that he reached the spot of the vehicle on the next day morning but found that the vehicle was not on the spot. The complainant made a search of the vehicle and when was unable to trace it, reported the incident to Toisa Police Station on 9.5.1989. On returning to Amaravati, the complainant informed the Divisional Manager of opposite party No. 2, and also the Regional Transport Officer, Amaravati, about the theft of his vehicle.

2. Ultimately, the complainant approached the opposite parties to settle his Insurance claim as regards the loss of the vehicle. According to complainant, he co-operated with the Opposite Parties in supplying of the necessary details for the settlement of his claim. The complainant alleged that whenever he visited the office of the opposite party at Amaravati, Mr. Deshpande and Mr. Vivek Ketkar, the Surveyor, used to demand new documents on each occasion with a view to delay the settlement.

The complainant further alleged that Mr. Vivek Ketkar, the authorised Surveyor of Opposite Parties, even demanded complainant to arrange Rs. 16,000/- for some urgent work. The complainant alleged that he raised the loan of Rs. 16,000/- on payment of interest for this purpose. The complainant further alleged that Mr. Deshpande did not settle the claim, even after the compliance all the requirements of Mr. Ketkar for further investigation. It is repeatedly alleged by the complainant that Shri Ketkar, Surveyor, renewed his demand for money for settlement of claim, failing which he threatened to make some adverse remarks. It is again alleged that since the complainant was required to pay interest on the borrowed amount of Rs. 16,000/-, he wanted back his money from Shri Ketkar. Ultimately, Shri Ketkar returned to the complainant the amount of Rs. 16,000/- on 26.1.1990, by a cheque. The cheque bears No. 765520, issued on Bank of Baroda. It is the claim of the complainant that the said cheque, issued by Shri Ketkar, bounced back and he did not get his amount back from Shri Ketkar. In short, the complainant’s allegations are that he was given lot of harassment by Mr. Deshpande and Shri Ketkar and ultimately rejected his claim. Therefore, he lodged his complaint for the settlement of his claim with compensation.

3. Opposite Parties filed their written version in which the Insurance particulars are admitted to be correct. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties were not satisfied with the claim of complainant and repudiated his claim. According to the Opposite Parties, the claim of complainant is fake and fabricated one. The Opposite Parties, however, admitted in the written version that Shri Ketkar was entrusted with the work of investigation into the complainant’s claim and that he had returned Rs. 16,000/- by cheque, dated 26.1.1990. Thus, the claim of the complainant was opposed by Opposite Parties.

4. We have heard Shri R.B. Kulantri, Advocate for the complainant and Shri M.R. Mundada, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

5. In view of the admission of the opposite parties that the vehicle in question was insured and that the claim was lodged by the complainant with the Opposite Parties on 26.5.1989, we are shocked to know that despite the repeated efforts of the complainant, his claim was not settled by the Opposite Party on the ground that they did not believe the statements made by the complainant about the theft of the vehicle. It is found from para 5 of the written ver