Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President; Mr.
D.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Member & Mrs. Rachna, Member
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED—Appellant
versus
RAKESH KUMAR MISRA—Respondent
Appeal No. 2306 of 2000—Decided on 13.12.2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Suresh Panjwani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate.
The duty of the Development Officer to ensure necessary details and papers before issuing an insurance policy.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - The court found that the insurance policy was issued before the theft of the vehicle, and the insurance company's argument of a fake certificate and lack of inspection was dismissed. The court confirmed the judgment of the District Consumer Forum and directed the appellant to pay the complainant the awarded sum.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured with the opposite party, and it was stolen before the insurance policy expired. The insurance claim was repudiated, leading to the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found deficiency in the opposite party's service and directed the Insurance Company to pay the complainant the insured sum along with interest and awarded costs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timing of the insurance policy in relation to the theft, the authenticity of the insurance cover, and the negligence of the Development Officer in issuing the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court dismissed the insurance company's argument of a fake certificate and lack of inspection, emphasizing the duty of the Development Officer to ensure necessary details and papers before issuing the policy.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of the District Consumer Forum were confirmed. The appellant was directed to pay the awarded sum to the complainant.
Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.8.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Lucknow, in Complaint Case No. 219/1996. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant owned a Hero Honda Motor Cycle. It was insured with opposite party, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 21.1.1994 and was to expire on 20.1.1995. The sum insured was Rs. 25,000/-. Copy of cover note was filed as Annexure-2. This vehicle was stolen on 25.1.1994 at about 4 p.m. from Lucknow University campus. The complainant lodged an FIR with the Police Station Hasanganj, Lucknow on the same day at 5 p.m. Copy of FIR is annexed as Annexure-3. Thereafter, the opposite party Insurance Company was informed on 27.1.1994 about the said theft by complainant. Information was also sent to Regional Transport Officer, Lucknow. After investigation the police submitted final report on 28.2.1994 to the Court of A.C.J.M. VIII which was accepted by the learned Court vide its order dated 22.9.1994. It is further alleged in the complaint that policy was taken on the basis of the old policy record which were submitted to the opposite party at the time of taking of the insurance policy. The claim was repudiated by Insurance Company by letter dated 14.2.1996. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint.
2. The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the complaint is time-barred. The claim of the complainant was repudiated because he could not provide the details of the previous insurance. It is further alleged that the vehicle had been insured after the theft had taken place. According to the Insurance Company a fake certificate was shown to the Development Officer and complainant obtained insurance cover without inspection of vehicle.
3. The learned District Forum after considering the facts of the case came to the conclusion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party in service and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 11% p.a. from 14.2.1996 upto the date of actual payment and also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost.
4. Aggrieved against this judgment and order the opposite party Insurance Company has come in appeal.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the parties.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that in the present case the vehicle was stolen prior to taking of the insurance policy. He has argued that a fake certificate was shown to the Development Officer at the time of taking of the policy. According to the Counsel for the Insurance Company, papers of old policy were demanded by Insurance Company but the complainant had failed to submit the same. In the present case the theft had taken place on 25.1.1994 while the insurance policy was taken on 21.1.1994. Thus, it goes to show that the insurance policy was issued 4 days before the theft had taken place. The date of theft is proved by filing copy of FIR which was lodged on 25.1.1994. In this case investigation was conducted by the police and final report was submitted which was accepted by A.C.J.M. VIII vide its order dated 22.9.1994. A copy of the said order is attached. There is no proof from the side of Insurance Company that the vehicle was not stolen on 25.1.1994.
7. The Counsel for the appellant has further argued that a fake certificate was shown to the Development Officer and complainant obtained insurance cover without inspection of the vehicle. We do not agree with the argument of the Counsel. It was the duty of the concerned Officer to take necessary details as well as papers required by the Company before issuing the policy. In the present case no such activity was done by the Development Officer, hence there was negligence on his part. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further relied on the copy of the reply issued by the complainant in response to the letter of Insurance Company. It is specifically written in reply th
