Appeal No.823/06


National Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant

V.

1.Ugam Singh

2.Rajasthan Amplifier set.

3.Nokia India Pvt.Ltd. Respondents


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Ram Kalyan Sharma,counsel for the appellant

None present on behalf of the respondents




Date of judgement: 23.4.2009


This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company which was op no.1 before the District Forum,Jalore against the order dated 19.6.06 passed by the District Forum,Jalore in complaint no.41/05,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that appellant insurance company was directed to pay 75% amount of the cost of the mobile which was Rs.4100/- which comes to Rs.3075/- and cost of Rs.1000/- was allowed against the appellant and it was further ordered that in case the mobile set in question was got recovered by the police,the same would be handed over by complainant res.no.1 to the appellant insurance company.


It arises in the following circumstances:

2

That the complainant res.no.1 had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company as well as res.no.2 & 3 before the District Forum,Jalore on 7.5.05 interalia stating that he had purchased a Nokia 1100 set on 9.6.04 bearing IMEI no.352524007355947 and that set was purchased by him for a sum of Rs.4100/- and that set was got insured with the appellant insurance company bearing policy no.351700/46039500324. It was further stated in the complaint that on 22.9.04 he had gone in capacity as PA of MLA,Jalore to Jaipur and that set was stolen away by someone on 22.9.04 and a report of the theft was lodged by him with the police station,Jalupura,Jaipur bearing FIR no.227/04 on 22.9.04 and the police did not recover that mobile set even after investigation. It was further stated in the complaint that information of the incident was also given by res.no.1 complainant to the office of the appellant insurance company on 29.9.04,but since the claim was not settled,therefore,the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellant insurance compay before the District Forum,Jalore on 15.12.05 admitting the fact that no doubt,the mobile set must have been stolen on 22.9.04, but the information as demanded by the appellant from the complainant res.no.1 was not supplied and through letter dated 11.10.05 an order was passed on the file of the complainant res.no.1 as No Claim and it was prayed that no claim was rightly done and complaint be dismissed.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties through the impugned order dated 19.4.06 had allowed the complaint of the complainant res.no.1 as stated above,interalia holding that so far as the fact that the mobile set was stolen away is well established from the FIR and further the information of the incident was also given by the complainant res.no.1 to the office of the appellant insurance

3


company in time and since the mobile set was purchased in the year 2004,therefore,75% of the amount of the price of the mobile set was ordered to be paid by the appellant insurance company to the complainant res.no.1.


Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.


In this appeal,the main contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company are as follows:


1.

that in the complaint the IMEI number of mobile set was mentioned,which was mentioned was 352524007355947 while in FIR it was mentioned was 9414374530,therefore,there is a difference between the number and thus the fact that the insured mobile set was stolen away is not found established.
2.

that the complainant res.no.1 was guilty as he has not kept the mobile set with proper care and had he would have exercised proper care,that would have not been stolen away and it was prayed that the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.


So far as the first point is concerned, the number mentioned is 352524007355947 and in the information which was given by the complainant res.no.1 to the appellant insurance company on 29.9.04 the same number was mentioned and the number which was mentioned in FIR was not the number of the mobile set but the

4


number of the sim card,therefore,to say that the mobile set which was insured was not stolen away could not be found established and thus it is held that the mobile set which was insured had been stolen away and thus the first argument stands rejected.


So far as the second argument is concerned,it may be stated here that the insurance is meant to protect the men against uncertain events which may otherwise be of some disadvantage to them not only those persons to whom positive loss may arise by such events occasioning the deprivation of that which may possess,but also those who in consequences of such events may be interpreted from them the advantage or profits which but for such event they will acquire according to the ordinary and probable course of things.


The primary function of insurance is the equitable distribution of the financial losses of insured,in other words,compensating the few who have lost from the fund built by the contribution of all the members. The insured member's contribution to the fund is in proportion to the risk from which he is protected and it is the special function of the insurer to calculate and charge this contribution or premium. It is also his function to manage the fund so built up pay compensation to the insured who have suffered losses. This benefits both the insured and the insurer. The insured fells secure that he will be protected from the insurance fund and this gives him freedom from anxiety. The insurer benefits from investing the fund.


Thus,it may be stated here that the mobile set which was insured with the appellant insurance company covering the risk of theft,the appellant insurance company ought to have paid compensation to the complainant res.no.1 instead of repudiating the claim. The second argument also stands rejected.


5


For reasons as stated above,the findings recorded by the District Forum are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity,illegality or perversity and are liable to be confirmed one and this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.



Member President