news details |
|
|
| Alleged fraudulent Insurance claim | | Commission refers case to Crime Branch for investigation | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 1- In a rare of the rarest case the State Consumer Commission referred a case to Crime Branch for investigation.
The Commission headed by Justice GD Sharma (retd) in an appeal field by the New India Insurance Company against the finding of Consumer Forum, allowed the appeal and quashed the order impugned with costs of Rs 10,000 to be paid by respondent Sanjay Kumar Kandhari to the appellant and referred the case to Crime Branch Police Jammu for investigation and necessary action under law.
Sanjay Kumar Kandhari got his car 1990 model insured with the New India Insurance Company, on June 1, 2001 and the insurance was to expire on May 31, 2002. On the second day from the commencement of the Insurance policy it was alleged that during the intervening night of 2/3 June 2001, the said car was stolen from the residence of Sanjay Kumar. The incident was reported in police post Sarwal on the morning of June 3, 2001 and FIR was registered u/s 379 RPC. The police closed the case as “untraced”. According to respondent No 1 he had informed NC Soni Development Officer of the said company by sending copy of FIR through post along with a letter which the appellant denied having received. Since the appellant delayed the settlement of the claim, the respondent No 1 was compelled to file complaint in the Divisional Forum in November, 2002. The Divisional Forum allowed the complaint and directed Insurance Company to indemnify respondent No 1 to the extent of Rs 95000 which was the actual loss assessed by the loss assessor and surveyor along with interest @ 6% PA from June 12, 2002 till is realization. The Insurance Company challenged the said order.
The judgment written by Justice GD Sharma for the Commission observed that after considering the arguments of both the sides, Commission directed Advocate Rupinder Singh to produce the claim file for the perusal of the Commission but he produced only Photostat copy of the premium receipt indicating the fact that the amount of premium was received on June 4, 2001. He failed to produce “claim file”, on the plea that it is being traced from the record. This circumstances strengthen the belief of the Commission that cover note is of the doubtful nature because it makes the insurance policy in question retrospective nature as operative from June 1, 2001. No Insurance policy can be issued without receipt of premium amount. Non production of “claim file” strengthens the belief of the Commission. The cover note of Insurance policy could not be fabricated by respondent No 1 himself without the help of some black sheep working in the office of appellant Insurance Company. The malafide conduct of Sanjay Kumar can be inferred from the fact that the “claim form” was filled up on July 23, 2002 which means after a gap of more than 13 months. He has given no explanation of such unusual human behavior.
Justice Sharma said that Commission is of the view that without any manner of doubt that the claim raised by Sanjay Kumar was fraudulent and the appellant had rightly repudiated it on September 16, 2002, intimation was given to him. It is an admitted legal proposition that fraud vitiates everything and visits with panel consequence. The fraud in this case was perpetuated with the active connivance of some black sheep working in the office of Insurance Company, which is a public institution being run on the hard-earned deposits of depositors who repose faith in its fair and orderly working. With these observations Commission allowed the appeal and quashed the order of Divisional Forum with cost of Rs 10,000 to be paid by the Sanjay Kumar to Insurance Company and also referred the case to Crime Branch Police for instigation and necessary action under law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
