Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1101 (MP)

Nandram Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2011-09-19

PRAMILA S.KUMAR, S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2011
JUDGMENT : As per S.K. Kulshrestha, J. (President):- By this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the appellant assails the order dated 30-7-2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, passed in C.C. No. 120/2010. 2. The matter relates to the theft of a tractor which was insured with the respondent but the respondent has repudiated the claim. 3. The tractor was insured for the period 7-3-2006 to 6-3-2007 with IDV Rs. 3,78,800/-. It was unfortunately stolen on 14-2-2007 and according to the appellant prompt FIR was filed on 15-2-2007. The Insurance Company was also informed on 28-2-2007 and the Investigator Shri R.N. Goswami was appointed who examined the witnesses on 20th, 21st and 25th April, 2007. In his investigation, he confirmed that the tractor had been stolen. The police investigated the matter but finding that it was not possible to trace the tractor or the accused, filed Final Report which was accepted by the Magistrate. The appellant also enquired from the company about his claim vide letter dated 10-5-2009. The company informed the insured that the docket of the claim was not found and that the insured should send all the papers so that the matter could be processed. 4. In controvertion of the above story of the claimant, the company has taken the stand that never any claims was filed for price of the tractor and it was only in 2009 when the matter was brought to the notice of the company that the company had to repudiate the claim on the ground that the claim was not filed with the company. 5. The District Forum from the facts and circumstances placed on record inferred that the claimant failed to establish that any claim was made for payment of the claim amount and dismissed the complaint. 6. From the facts hereinabove stated it is not disputed that the tractor was in fact, insured with the company and it was stolen as is clear from Final Report submitted by the police. Even the Investigator Shri R.N. Goswami has subscribed to view that the tractor had been stolen. Under these circumstances, it would be travesty of justice to allow the respondent Company to be let off with complete the impunity. 7. Even the Investigator Shri R.N. Goswami has subscribed to view that the tractor had been stolen. Under these circumstances, it would be travesty of justice to allow the respondent Company to be let off with complete the impunity. 7. In the result, we allow this appeal in the following terms :- (1) That the appellant shall within 15 days file the claim with the Insurance Company and furnish to the Insurance Company all such documents as may be required to process the claim. (2) After processing the case, the Insurance Company shall take decision within one month with regard to the claim of the appellant. (3) The Insurance Company shall be free to restrict payment up to 75% of the IDV in view of the fact that the timely information was not sent t the Insurance Company. There shall be no order as to costs.