Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President, Amarpreet Sharma and Baldev Singh Sekhon, Members
S. SUBEG SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1441 of 2005
Decided on : 07-03-2011
Insurance Claim - Theft - Sections 457, 380, IPC - [Sections 457, 380, IPC] - The court discussed the insurance policy taken by the appellant, the circumstances of the alleged theft, the delay in reporting the theft to the police and the insurance company, and the contradictory statements of the appellant and his family members. The court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Trilochan Jane, emphasizing the importance of immediate reporting of theft to the police and the insurer. The court found that the delay in reporting the theft and the inconsistencies in the appellant's statements rendered the insurance claim not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had taken an insurance policy for various items including jewellery and valuables. He reported a theft to the police and the insurance company after a delay of about 36 hours. The insurance claim was repudiated by the respondents. The appellant filed a complaint for recovery of the insurance amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in reporting the theft and the inconsistencies in the appellant's statements rendered the insurance claim not maintainable.
Issues: Delay in reporting the theft, inconsistencies in the appellant's statements, admissibility of the insurance claim
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in reporting the theft and the inconsistencies in the appellant's statements rendered the insurance claim not maintainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
ORDER
S.N. Aggarwal, President - The appellant had taken the insurance policy from the respondents for a sum of Rs. 29 lacs for building, etc., Rs. 50,000 for televisions, etc., Rs. 5,35,000 for jewellery and valuables and Rs. 2,13,000 for electronic goods. It was valid for the period from 4.6.2002 to 3.6.2003. On 15.11.2002, the appellant along with his wife and children went to the market for shopping after locking bed room and main gate. They returned at about 9.30 p.m. They found that the main gate was opened and the door of the bed room was also opened. The articles were lying scattered. On preliminary inquiry, the appellant found that 10 bangles of 15 Tolas for Rs. 75,000, 4 Karras weighing 12 Tolas for Rs. 60,000, 3 chains with pendal of 15 Tolas for Rs. 75,000 were stolen along with some cash. A watch, cordless phone and two shawls were stolen. The matter was reported to the police for which FIR No. 303 of 2002 under Sections 457, 380, IPC was registered. Intimation was also given to the respondents.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondents had deputed one Jagir Singh of Batala as investigator. The said investigator was of doubtful background as he was dismissed from Government service. The report of the investigator was not given to the appellant but the claim lodged by the appellant with the respondents was repudiated by them vide letter dated 14.3.2003. Hence, the complaint for recovery of the insurance amount of Rs. 2,81,700. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
3. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant had taken the insurance policy for the items alleged and it was valid for the period from 4.6.2002 to 3.6.2003. On receipt of the information from the appellant, the respondents had appointed the investigator who had recorded the statements of the appellant and of his son and submitted his report. It was admitted that the insurance claim of the appellant was repudiated.
4. It was further pleaded that the alleged theft had taken place on 15.11.2002 but the matter was reported to the police by the appellant on 17.11.2002. The intimation was sent to the respondents on 18.11.2002. The investigator had recorded the statements of the appellant and of his family members and had also made inquiries from the neighbours. The version of the appellant was totally contrary to what was alleged by him.
5. It was also pleaded that the alleged theft was committed by the servant of the appellant himself and it was not covered by the insurance policy. Hence, the repudiation was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
6. The appellant filed his affidavit Ex. C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of R.K. Dupper, Divisional Manager as Ex. R1. The respondents also proved documents Ex. R2 to Ex. R9.
7. The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 22.6.2005.
8. Hence, this appeal.
9. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 22.6.2005 be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed with heavy costs.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. The admitted facts are that the appellant had taken the insurance policy from the respondents for the period from 4.6.2002 to 3.6.2003 by which the jewellery and valuable against all risks was covered for an amount of Rs. 5,35,000. The cover note of the insurance policy has also been proved by the appellant as Ex.C3. It is also proved by the respondents as Ex.R2.
13. It was pleaded by the appellant that the theft had taken place on 15.11.2002 when the appellant along with his wife and children had gone to the market and by the time th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
