Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 978 (HP)

Pradeep Mehta v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2009-11-05

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, CHANDER SHEKHAR SHARMA, SAROJ SHARMA

body2009
ORDER Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel President - Only question involved in this appeal is, whether the correction carried out by Shri Gian Chand, agent of the respondent in the cover note, Annexure C.I., was done in a bonafide and regular manner before the fire incident or after it. In case, it is held that the correction was carried out in Annexure C.I. showing the insured residence of the appellant at Village Lakhawati prior to the date of fire, this appeal has to be allowed and if it is held to be having been done after the fire incident, then the consequence is obvious. 2. It is not in dispute between the parties that the appellant had obtained insurance cover in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- of his house. A perusal of Annexure C.I, cover note shows that it was in respect of the residence of the respondent situated at Village Majhotli, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. It was obtained on 12.2.1999 and the fire incident in this case causing damage to the house is of 24.3.1999. Despite receipt of intimation regarding the fire incident, claim was not settled, complaint was filed by the appellant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent before the District Forum below. As per allegations made in this complaint, appellant had got his house at village Lakhawati insured and he had given for correspondence address of his village Majholti. In the cover note according to the appellant, his insured house was shown at village Mahjolti instead of Lakhawati. When this fact came to his notice, he immediately informed the Development Officer -Shri Gian Chand who had issued the same. He carried out correction in the cover note, Annexure C.I, under his signatures' and thus described house at Village Lakhawati being insured instead of the house situate at village Majholti, as was originally mentioned in the cover note. This was a case of mistake. Investigator was appointed by the respondent. Regarding fire incident, F.I.R. was also lodged at Police Station, Nerva. In addition to this factum of house having been damaged due to fire was also confirmed by Tehsildar, Chopal, vide Annexure C.III. 3. District Forum below after hearing the parties and taking note of the material on record, has dismissed the complaint. 4. Investigator was appointed by the respondent. Regarding fire incident, F.I.R. was also lodged at Police Station, Nerva. In addition to this factum of house having been damaged due to fire was also confirmed by Tehsildar, Chopal, vide Annexure C.III. 3. District Forum below after hearing the parties and taking note of the material on record, has dismissed the complaint. 4. Before dealing with the contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we think it necessary to notice the stand of the respondent-Insurance Company regarding correction in the cover note. According to the respondent, it was never approached by the appellant for correction in the cover note thereby showing the house at Village Lakhawati being insured and not at Village Majholti as was originally mentioned in the cover note. When the fact of unauthorized change came to its notice, higher authorities were informed who initiated disciplinary action against Shri Gian Chand, Development Officer. He was found guilty of having made unauthorized change showing the house at Village Lakhawati instead of Majholti as originally shown in the cover note, Annexure C.I. Vide Annexure R.1, penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage was inflicted upon him, and vide Annexure R.2, penalty of 'censure' was imposed upon Mr. Narosh Chand Nagraik, Senior Assistant, Divisional Office, Shimla. As per stand of the respondent in their reply; he (Mr. Naresh Chand Nagraik) was an accomplice of the Development Officer Shri Gian Chand. 5. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that District Forum was in error when it dismissed the complaint by accepting the stand of the respondent regarding unauthorized change having been made by the Development Officer as well as by the Senior Assistant who were punished vide Annexures R.1 & R.2. According to him, the correction was carried out before 24.3.1999 i.e. before the date of fire, as such no benefit can be derived by the respondent from the initiation as well as imposing on punishment upon the Development Officer as well as official in the office. 6. In order to succeed in the complaint as well as in this appeal, we are of the view that appellant was duty bound in law to have placed on record some cogent, reliable as well as acceptable evidence/material to prima face show that a prayer was made either to the respondent or to the Development Officer before 24.3.1999 for correction as noted hereinabove. 7. Appellant for reasons best known to him, is silent on this aspect of the case. Likewise in the evidence filed by way of his affidavit, appellant has not said a word to the effect that the correction was carried out by the Development Officer before 24.3.1999. This in our opinion was necessary, in the face of the stand of the respondent in its reply that the correction by the Development Officer Gian Chand was unauthorized and he has been departmentally dealt with alongwith another official. 8. We specifically called upon learned Counsel for the appellant to point out anything from the complaint file to prima facie demonstrate that either the respondent was informed before 24.3.1999 when the fire incident took place, or else the correction was carried out in Annexure C.I. before the date when the fire took place. After the respondent had taken a specific stand that the change was unathorisedly carried out by the Development Officer and the official in its office who were dealt with departmentally, we are of the view that the appellant had two opportunities to have overcome this situation. He could have filed rejoinder and contested the stand of the respondent and explained what he had to say in this behalf. Alternatively he could have atleast said something in his affidavit as to how and at what point of time he informed the respondent-Insurance Company for the correction showing insured house to be situated in Village Lakhawati instead of Majholti as originally mentioned in Annexure C.I. Faced with this situation, Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant could not stretch his submission any further in this behalf. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case as explained hereinabove, we find no substance in this appeal and we are further of the view that the impugned order passed by the District Forum below suffers from no infirmity in the eyes of law and deserves to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 10. No other point was urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per rules. M.R.B.