National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs VINAY GAUR

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 7.6.1999 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in Case No. 90/1996 whereby the claim of the complainant was allowed for payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest.

THE brief facts of the case are that Smt. Vinay Gaur has purchased a video camera with accessories by taking a loan from the Bank of India. It was insured with the appellant for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by two fire policies. During the insurance period of 5.9.1995 a flood affected the area where the complainant was residing and the camera along with accessories was flooded away. THE complainant informed the Insurance Company on 29.9.1995 about the flood. THE Company deputed Shri R.P. Sharma, Surveyor who submitted his report on 20.11.1995. THE Company repudiated the claim on 29.5.1996 on the ground that the address of the respondent, as given is wrong. It is said that in the proposal form, address of the complainant was given at Dhalwala, District Tehri Garhwal but at the time of incident, the complainant was residing in Bahuguna Nagar, Sheesham Jhari, Munni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal. According to the survey report, the loss of the complainant was to the tune of Rs. 66,510/-. The District Forum took the evidence of the parties and allowed the claim for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- against which order, the present appeal has been filed.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The insurance is admitted. The incident is admitted and the loss is also admitted to the tune of Rs. 66,510/-. It was repudiated only on the ground that a wrong address was given in the proposal form. There is nothing on record to show that the video camera of the complainant was not insured. There is nothing to show that on the earlier address somebody else was residing and on the later address there was some other owner of the camera. The identity of the claimant, the identity of the article insured etc. is not disputed. According to the complainant, this allegation of the Insurance Company was also false because the proposal form was filled in by the agent of the Company and not by the complainant. She has disposed her correct address there. Merely because there is some discrepancy in the address, the claim should not have been repudiated. What is required by the policy is that the insured article should not be removed without the information to the Company and there is no such allegation.

NOW the question is what should have been the compensation. The actual price of the camera has not been given in the claim petition and it has been done purposely. However, when the notice was sent on 11.6.1996, the complainant has specifically alleged that she has taken a loan of Rs. 70,000/- and she has purchased a camera along with accessories for a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Thus, the maximum amount spent by her is Rs. 75,000/-. She did not file any receipt of purchase etc. in the District Forum, but with the permission of the Commission, the Insurance Company filed those papers here and the bill shows that the claimant has spent a sum of Rs. 55,000/- plus Rs. 20,035/- which is 75,035/-. Even in the claim form she has mentioned the market value of the camera and the accessories as Rs. 75,000/-. Thus, the total amount spent by the claimant was Rs. 75,000/-. It has been insured for Rs. 1,00,000/-. The claimant is entitled not for the actual amount insured, but for the actual amount lost. If she has inflated her insurance amount, that will not entitle the claimant for inflated amount. The claimant is entitled to only actual loss and no further. The loss was within a period of 6 months only. There is no question of any depreciation etc. In these circumstances the claimant was entitled to get a claim of Rs. 75,000/- only. The opposite party has also assessed the loss of Rs. 66,510/-. The order under appeal is to be modified to that extent that the claim should have been allowed only for Rs. 75,000/-. ORDER The appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. The claim of the complainant stands allowed for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- only along with interest as directed by the Forum on this amount only. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal partly allowed.