VIJAY KUMAR vs G.K. RANGROO, BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. TOWN HALL, JAMMU

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the DF dated 27.3.95 by which a complaint of appellant was dismissed.

THE complaint was based on an insurance policy covering apart from other house hold goods a television set which were damaged during the validity of the policy on 23.3..94. A claim raised by the complainant was declined by the Insurance Company on the ground that the claim was false. THEre is no need for us to give details as to how the damage was caused as it is not in dispute. We may however note that once Sarbjit Singh Bedi who was deputed as Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 11,373/- and when the complainant approached for the payment he was demanding Rs. 5000/-. After he failed to do so the Insurance Company appointed Investigator Kartar Singh Multani who reported that the bill is not genuine though he does not dispute the fact that the loss was suffered. In their reply the Insurance Company has taken the plea that the matter was got investigated by one Kartar Singh Multani and then by V.N. Sarin and Co. who reported that M/s. Hansay Electronics Bhagirath Palace Chowk Delhi from whom the purported bill has been prepared did not exist and the bill was not genuine. According to them since the bill was found to be false, the claim was rejected. We may note that the Insurance Company made no mention about the quantum of loss assessed by Sarbjit Singh Bedi.

The DF has dismissed the complaint on the only ground that even the complainant during his cross-examination has deposed that he had got the bill through his agent whose whereabouts are not known to him.

NOW after considering the facts, circumstances and the respective contentions of the parties we are of the view that the order of the DF has resulted in substantial injustice. The order under appeal if we may say so is only theoretically correct and we have the following reason for this conclusion. It is not the case of Insurance Company that the loss was not suffered nor is it the case of the Insurance Company that the assessment of loss to the tune of Rs. 11,373/-made by Sarbjit Singh Bedi Surveyor is not correct. There is no allegation that the Surveyor was in any way mixed up with the complainant. The Surveyor being the only person who had gone on spot bears the testimony to the fact that the Television Set had got damaged and he was not only saw for himself the kind and quality of damage but also prepared an estimate of the loss based on the price index in the market. It is quite natural, therefore, that the complainant must have got his Television Set repaired. We can not simply dismiss his claim because he got the Television Set repaired through an Agent who furnished him a bill from a concern which does not exist. There is no reason for us to disbelieve him that at the time when he made the statement the whereabouts of that man were not known to him.

NOW that apart, we are surprised at the approach adopted by the DF. The DF simply on the basis of the statement of the Branch Manager of the Company that the claims put forth by the complainant was false has assumed that whatever has been stated by the Branch Manager is correct. It may be recalled that the rejection of the claim by the Insurance Company is based on some report of investigation made by one Kartar Singh Multani and verified by one Shri V.N. Sareen. These investigations have not been shown the light of the day and they continue to be closely guarded secret. We believe that we have a justify to ask for the document on which this defence is based. What was the conclusion of investigation conducted and who were the persons examined by them, is a matter which the Insurance Company is not entitled to withhold from us. If a defence is based on some document of investigation that document alone could prove the defence and no amount of ipsi dixit by a Branch Manager would be any substitute for the same. We are not even told as to when these investigators were appointed and what was the fees paid to them. In the light of these facts it is difficult to say that any investigation was at all done and once it is held to be so it is impossible for us to believe that the bill was issued by a firm which does not exist. Neither Kartar Singh Multani nor V.N. Sareen has been examined to substantiate this fact. The evidence tendered by Branch Manager G.K. Rangroo is based on hearsay and is not admissible. In any case since the damage to the tune of Rs. 11,373/- is admitted the interests of justice require that this amount must be paid by the Company to the complainant. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the DF and allow the complaint with the following directions : - The appellant shall be indemnified by the Oriental Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 11,373/- with 18% interest from the date of loss to the date of final payment. We allow a further sum of Rs. 2000/- as compensation including the costs of the litigation to the complainant to be paid by the respondents. The amounts thus assessed by us shall be paid within three weeks from the date of this order. A copy of this order together with records shall be sent to the DF and a certified copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost to be collected by them on their own within a week time. The appeal is disposed of. Appeal allowed with costs.