: Courts must protect genuine consumers against technical and procedural hurdles in insurance claim settlements.

JUDGMENT

Justice (Retd.) G.D. Sharma - Order dated 05.02.2007, passed by the learned Divisional Forum Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been taken in appeal which is time barred by 48 days. The impugned order has been passed in execution proceedings. The final order in complaint no. 526 instituted on 01.03.2004 was passed on 09.05.2005. It is an admitted fact that the insured vehicle bearing registration no. JK02E 2929 was under insurance cover and the risk assured was to the tune of Rs. One lac. During the currency of the Insurance Policy, vehicle was stolen and recovered in Delhi and was kept at the "supurddari" of the concerned court in Delhi. The non-applicant/respondent had raised the claim and the Forum had given him the relief which is reproduced:-

"From the discussion made hereinabove, we direct the respondent company to settle and pay the amount of claim of the complainant after making assessment of loss to the insured vehicle of the complainant within two months from the date of this order. The company shall complete all the formalities, which are required by the respondent company for the settlement of the claim. The complaint is disposed of accordingly. File be duly compiled and consigned to record after due completion".

2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant has challenged the order passed in execution proceedings urging this Commission to go behind the decree. His contention is that the vehicle was stolen on 02.05.2000 and his claim was closed as "No Claim" which was intimated to the respondent vide letter dated 28.10.2002. Despite the fact that claim had become barred by time, the complaint was entertained by the Forum and finally decided in respondent's favour. This is inherent illegality and in appeal can be looked into. His other contention is that in terms of the order dated 09.05.2005, passed by the learned Forum, the non-applicant/respondent was required to complete all the formalities which were required thereunder but he failed to show compliance. As instances he was the owner of the vehicle under law and the vehicle could only be got released by him from the court in Delhi and then request should have been made to the appellant to get the loss assessed by a surveyor. Lastly, he has contended that respondent could get compensation in case the vehicle would have got damaged in an accident but since the vehicle was stolen and subsequently recovered so no damage was caused and the applicant/appellant was not under any liability to reimburse for any damage. The direction to pay an amount of Rs. 80,000/- within two month from the date of passing of the order was not in accordance with law as not covered by the terms and conditions of the Policy.

3. The non-applicant/respondent (Decree Holder) has contended that the loss to his vehicle was caused in the year 2000 and theft of the vehicle was covered under the perils of Insurance Policy in question. He has also contended that the repudiation of the claim was never communicated to him as he has specifically stated in Para nos. 7 and 8 of his complaint. Not only that, vide his letter 25.10.2002, he had communicated the loss of the vehicle to the concerned Branch Manager. His further contention is that he had gone to Delhi many a times to get the vehicle released from the concerned court and made requests to the applicant/appellant to show compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Forum by getting the damage assessed but his requests had gone hey wire. He had made a ferment appeal to the Commission that for the last one decade, he has been put to unnecessary harassment by the applicant/appellant by resorting to unwanted litigation based on technical grounds, when his claim is genuine.

4. We have considered the respective contentions of the counsel of the applicant/appellant as well as that of the non-applicant/respondent. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the applicant/appellant are not based on the factual an