NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs BAIJNATH SHUKLA

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 20.5.1997 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Morena in their Case No. 23/96, wherein the Forum has directed the opposite party/appellant to pay to the respondent Rs. 19,935.75/- and proceedings cost and interest etc. for the damage caused to his truck, insured by the appellant.

HEARD the arguments of Counsel for both the parties and perused the records of the case. The grounds for appeal are as under: (i) That on 9.10.95 when the brother of the complainant came to the office of the appellant to know the position of the claim case, he was asked to file copy of F.I.R., on which he got excited and forcibly took away the claim file and tore it away on account of which the appellant could not settle his claim and his claim case had to be filed. (ii) That in the absence of claim form and other documents, which the complain- ant was asked to return it was not possible to settle the claim.

The District Forum has dealt with both of these arguments in paras 7 to 12 of their order, as to why they are not tenable. The appellant has not stated as to how and why the findings of the District Forum on these issues as contained in these paragraphs are wrong. The appellant has simply repeated before us the same arguments again. Repeatition of the same arguments with- out rebutting the findings of the Forum, is of no use. On a perusal of records, we find absolutely no reason to disagree with the conclusion drawn by the Forum in the aforesaid paras. We also agree with the contentions of the Forum as contained in Paras 12 to 17 and the appellant has challenged these contentions also.

THE appeal is therefore dismissed and the order of the forum is maintained. THE appellant shall pay Rs. 1000/- to the respondent as cost of this appeal. We would like to add further that the company should get an enquiry conducted against officials concerned, as to why they delayed the settlement of claim for more than six months and why they asked for FIR again, when in their First reminder letter dated 2.8.95 in the list of documents asked for, the copy of police report was crossed (X) as not asked for. It should further be enquired into, as to why the incident was not reported to the police more so when, as alleged, official file was torn and taken away and if it was torn away, how the surveyor''s report remained intact. And after enquiry, suitable action should be taken against delinquent officials. Appeal dismissed with costs.