MAN MOHAN BHAGATI vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties we may first briefly note the facts. Admittedly the complainant had insured one National Video Camera and Olympus Camera with the opp. party against theft and burglary. These goods were lying in the complainant''s car No. 3141 parked about half kilometer away from Oberoi Place Hotel, Srinagar. The goods were in a rexen bag alongwith the documents pertaining to these goods but on 12.7.1989 when the car was parked there these goods were stolen from the car and a complaint in respect of the same was lodged with police post Nehru Park, Srinagar. The investigations in the matter were carried out by the police but the theft remained untraced. The complainant raised a claim with the opp. party who asked to fulfill certain requirements, which the complainant did. The opp. party appointed a Surveyor who wrote to the complainant that since it has not been possible to verify the authenticity of the certificate submitted by him the matter could not be settled.

THE main objection of the opp. party is that unless the complainant file the original documents the mere fact that a case of theft ipso facto does not entitle him to indemnification and that the fact of theft of Cameras needs a deep scrutiny. It is also stated that it was the duty of the complainant to prove the loss and satisfy the Surveyor that these goods which were insured were duly possessed by him and he was the owner thereof. According to them for want of the necessary cooperation by the complainant the authenticity of the documents cannot be verified and it was in this situation that his claim has been rejected as not valid. No evidence has been led by the parties. The complainant is relying on a document issued by the Customs Superintendent wherein it is stated that these Cameras have been imported. It is however not stated in this certificate as to who imported these Cameras. The only thing stated is about the No. Cameras belonging to Shri Bhagati indicating thereby that the records of the Customs People show that these Cameras have been imported by Bhagati himself. This however is not the case of the complainant. As a matter of fact the Surveyor''s report clearly indicates that these Cameras have been purchased by the complainant from some vendor at Srinagar and since the original documents were also stolen he had produced some duplicate vouchers of purchase. According to the Surveyor a number of efforts were made to get in touch with the concerned shopkeeper but his shop was always found closed and it was in this situation that the Surveyor addressed a letter to the complainant that unless the authenticity of these documents is verified there can be no recommendation in respect of assessment of loss. The crux of the matter therefore is that the claim has been rejected on the sole ground that the authenticity of the documents of ownership could not be verified and in doing so the complainant has provided no assistance to the opp. party

We are not however concerned with this. Even non-verification of these documents by the Insurance Companies and rejection on this ground in our view would amount to deficient service. Since the complainant on that ground approached us it was still open to him to establish before us the authenticity of the documents that he was the owner of these Cameras. This he could have done by requiring the opp. party to submit these documents before us and by examining the vendor of the cameras and the author of those documents to prove the same. The complainant has however not chosen this course of action and has mainly relied on the certificate of Customs Authorities, which only shows that the cameras had been imported into the country. The complainant has failed to lead evidence before us in respect of the fact that he had an insurable interest in these Cameras as the owner thereof. Having failed to do so we are unable to hold him. Dismissed. Complaint dismissed. ______________