An insurance company, which refused to indemnify the owner of a lost mobile phone merely for the reason that she did not produce a copy of the first information report of the police complaint, has been ordered by a consumer court to pay the claim amount of Rs 8,700 along with compensation.
The National Insurance Company had repudiated Deepika Verma's claim citing an "exclusion clause" that only a "Non-Cognizable Report was lodged mentioning that the cell phone was taken away by somebody" while the claim covers only "theft through force or violent entry or exit".
Rejecting the contention, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) said "It is very clear that the theft took place. Twisting of words will not change the prima-facie meaning of the crime. A layman is unable to differentiate between cognizable and non-cognizable offences".
"When one informs the police about such incident he or she always thinks that a complaint has been registered", Forum President K K Chopra and Member Neeru Mittal said ordering the college girl a claim of Rs 8,700 and a compensation of Rs 2000 for the "harassment and mental agony" caused to her.
The Forum said Daily Diary entry and the NCR was sufficient to support the claim of the consumer.
Somebody snatched Verma's purse containing her Nokia handset worth Rs 8,700 when she was returning from her college. After lodging an NCR, she registered her claim with the insurance company.
She then approached the consumer court seeking justice.
