NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is at the behest of the opposite parties in the complaint, i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd., against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (for short, the "District Forum") dated 6.6.2005 by which the complaint filed by the complainant had been allowed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute. Hi -tech Electronics, Sangrur had sold a Nokia mobile set to complainant - Darshan Singh (respondent in this appeal) on 21.2.2004 for a sum of Rs. 3700. To attract buyers and to give them some incentive/concessions, the Nokia Company had entered into an agreement with the National Insurance Company Ltd. that the Nokia mobile sets, which are sold, would be covered under the Special Contingency Insurance Policy. It is not disputed that the mobile set, which was purchased by the complainant, was covered under the Special Contingency Insurance Policy. It was alleged in the complaint that the mobile set was stolen from the complainant s pocket on 4.1.2005 (wrongly mentioned 14.1.2005 in the order of the District Forum) at Dirba bus stand. The complainant informed the Police about the loss of his mobile set on 8.1.2005. The D.D.R. was recorded by the Police at Police Station Dirba. A claim was lodged with the Insurance Company that since the mobile set had been stolen, he should be reimbursed the price of the set under the Special Contingency Insurance Policy. The claim was repudiated on the ground that no F.I.R. had been lodged. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, which has been allowed vide order dated 6.6.2005, whereby the Insurance Company was directed to reimburse the amount of Rs. 3700 to the complainant. An amount Rs. 1000 was also awarded as compensation and litigation expenses. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) AGAIN , the same point has been reiterated by the Insurance Company before this Commission, i.e., no F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant. It has been recently held by this Commission in First Appeal No. 789 of 2005, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anil Sehgal, decided on 13.7.2005 that the victim s duty is only to inform the police regarding the alleged crime. It is upto the police authorities whether to record D.D.R. or F.I.R. In actual recording of a D.D.R. or F.I.R. no role is played by the victim excepting to inform the true facts to the police, either orally or in writing. In this case, the information to the police was given on affidavit by the complainant. In another case, when a similar defence was taken by the Insurance Company regarding the insurance claim, when a person had died that no FIR/post -mortem report was coming forth, such a plea was negatived by this Commission in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Nidhi,2005 1 CPC 533. Really speaking, as held in Nidhi s case, the insurance claim is based on the factum of death. Death can be proved otherwise than F.I.R./post -mortem report. Similarly, in the present case, the fact to be proved was the loss of the mobile set or stealing thereof. D.D.R./F.I.R. is a type of evidence to substantiate the factum of the loss of a mobile or stealing thereof. Can it be said that if there is no F.I.R. at all, the question of stealing/loss of a mobile set or that of anything else cannot be proved by other evidence. Supposing, there is other evidence, then on that evidence, the Insurance Company or the District Forum can also come to the conclusion that the loss of a particular item is there. In the present case, the D.D.R. about the loss of the Nokia mobile set was lodged with the police by the complainant and there is no reason to brush that aside.