The central legal point established in the judgment is the dismissal of a complaint based on a fraudulent insurance policy as false and vexatious, leading to the imposition of costs and initiation of a criminal investigation.

G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral)

1. This complaint was filed herein on 12-07-1999 and the proceeding of the case undoubtedly establishes the fact that parties are avoiding the decision of the case on its merits. This finding is fortified from the fact that last appearance of Mr. M.A. Dar, advocate was recorded on 23-09-2008.

2. The complainant has alleged that he obtained Fire Insurance Policy no. 1135120146433 and got his two storyed residential building (of `A' class construction) with attic insured for a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs. It also covered terrorist acts. The policy became effective on 08-06-98 and had to expire on 07-06-99. The building and attic had a cover risk of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs), whereas, the household articles had a cover risk of Rs. 1.00 lakh. It is alleged that on 06-07-98, there was a cross-firing of weapons between the militants and the security forces nearby the insured building and as a consequence thereof a devastating fire broke out which burnt the insured building and the insured household articles. Beside this, some adjoining buildings were also burnt. According to him, he suffered a total loss in the sum of Rs. 13,02,308/-. The incident was reported in the police and FIR no. 154/98 was registered. The claim was registered with the OP and Mr. Hilal Ahmad Raja was deputed by the OP to survey the loss. All possible cooperation was rendered to him, but no settlement of the claim was made which forced the complainant to file the complaint. The reliefs claimed are indemnification in the sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for the loss suffered alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and a compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for mental agony.

3. In the written version, the OP has taken the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the plea that claim is false and fabricated which fact was established after the investigation made by Mr. Bilal Ahmad Raja who was appointed as preliminary surveyor. He has found that the insurance agent namely, Bashir Ahmad Wani S/o Ghulam Mohiuddin Wani R/o Shilwat Sonawari was a privy in the fabrication of false record because his "Insurance Agency" bearing no. 21436/028 had been suspended on the basis of complaints and he had got issued the issuance policy in question against the name of genuine insured person. It is further pleaded that Photostat copy of the insurance policy which has been attached as Annexure-A with the complaint is not supported by the original copy of the policy because its whole record including premium receipt no. 840832 dated 08-06-98 is missing from the "binder" (Register) maintained in the officer of OP. After further enquiry it was found that the insurance policy which was being made the basis of the claim by the complainant had been issued in the name of Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik R/o Sonawari Kashmir against premium receipt no. 840832 for an amount of Rs. 400/-. The complainant was called to explain his conduct in the office of the OP and on his failure to enter appearance, the policy was cancelled. With the written version the OP has placed on record a Photostat copy of receipt no. 840832 dated 08-06-98 issued in the name of Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik R/o Sonawari Kashmir. Also a copy of the registered letter dated 22-07-98 had been placed on record which shows that his agency as an agent had been suspended.

4. The complainant himself has appeared as a witness in support of his complaint and examined Shabir Ahmad Mir and Haji Ghulam Mohammad Nadroo as his witnesses. The OPs have examined Irshad Ahmad Bhat Legal Assistant, Bashir Ahmad ex-insurance agent and Abdul Rashid Malik as their witnesses. Mr. Irshad Ahmad Bhat has stated that as per the record, the premium in the amount of Rs. 400/- had been received from Abdul Rashid Malik R/o Sonawari and no premium had been received from the complainant. He has also stated that the insurance agent who is stated to have been involved in the issuance of the insurance policy in question has lost his licenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document