UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President &
Mr. D.D. Bahuguna, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.—Appellants
versus
MRS. MAYA GANDHI—Respondent
Appeal No. 2106/SC of 1999—Decided on 5.10.1999

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 15, 2(1)(g) -Appeal -Deficiency in service - Insurance Car insured for Rs. 3,50,000/- stolen - FIR lodged - Claim rejected Complaint - Forum awarded insured amount with 18%· interest Challenged - Contention; (1) Police has reported that car had not been stolen; (2) vehicle had no fitness certificate and was not road worthy, theft could not be committed, (3) Road taxes had not been paid - Therefore no liability can be fixed on the insurer - Contentions rejected - Order upheld.

       Held: The learned District Forum has also considered this aspect in detail and have come to the conclusion that when the Court had accepted the second investigation report about the theft of the vehicle then this report is to be taken to be true. The learned District Forum has clearly held that the first investigation report was not accepted by the Court and second investigation was ordered on the protest petition of the complainant. The learned District Forum was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion, it has reached according to the established principles of law. The Insurance Company cannot agitate this point and to say that the First Information Report or the investigation got conducted by the Insurance Company was correct and reliance should be placed on it.

       (Para 7)

       Further held : There is no law which says that if the vehicle is not fit to be roadworthy on the date of theft, then the theft cannot be committed of this vehicle. The learned District Forum has mentioned that the complainant has filed a fitness certificate dated 6-3-1998 which shows in the year, the vehicle was stolen, this vehicle was in a fit state, healthy and was in a condition to be road-worthy. If the road tax etc. was not paid then it is not a valid ground for rejection of the complainants claim. The Insurance Company is not concerned with the payment of road tax etc. not done by the complainant. (Para 8)

       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 15, 14(1)(d) and 2(1)(g) - Appeal - Compensation Deficiency in service - Insurance Car insured for Rs. 3,50,000/- stolen - Forum allowed insured amount plus 18% interest - Challenged Contention that car was insured for higher value and the liability of the insurer, if any cannot be more than Rs. 2,23,000/- i.e. the price of vehicle on the date of theft as assessed by Surveyor - No report of Surveyor filed - Contentions rejected.

       Held: The survey report has not been filed in order to find out the value of the vehicle when it was purchased. We are deprived of the findings of the Surveyor and we cannot scrutinize the same in order to see whether the figure of Rs. 2,23,000/- is rightly assessed by the Surveyor or not. This is an admitted fact that on the date of insurance the price of the vehicle was taken at Rs. 3,50,000/-. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that whenever a vehicle is insured at a higher price then the prevailing market price is taken and the insurance is done on that price. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Insurance Company is devoid of any merit. It cannot be believed that the Insurance Company while insuring a vehicle will mention a higher price than the general price. Generally the prices prevailing on the date of insurance is taken to be the price of the vehicle prevailing on the relevant date. If the price of the vehicle is taken to be on the higher side and the premium is also charged on the higher price by the Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to say that the loss is not to be paid on the price which was assured at the time of insurance. The Insurance Company cannot take advantage of its own fault even if it has mentioned a higher price because in that case the premium is also charged on the higher amount. The vehicle shall be deemed to have been insured for the amount for which the premium was charged and in the event of loss that much amount for which the vehicle was insured is to be paid by the Insurance Company. (Para 6)

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       IMPORTANT POINT

       The vehicle shall be deemed to have been insured for the amount for which premium was charged and in the event of loss that amount for which the vehicle is insured is to be paid by the insurer.