State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Regional Manager & Anr. vs Pramod Kumar Nahak on 21 May, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/3004)
Appeal No.723/2011
Instituted on : 14.11.2011
1. Regional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Ambikapur, Post & District : Surguja (C.G.)
2. Regional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Regional Office - Alok Bharti Towers, Fourth Floor,
Shahid Nagar, Bhubaneshwar (Orissa)
Through : Senior Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office No.1,
Post & District : Raipur (C.G.) ..... Appellants.
Vs.
Pramod Kumar Nahak, S/o Shri Vijay Nahak,
R/o : Ekta Nagar, Godripara,
Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri,
Tehsil : Khadgwa, District Korea (C.G.) ..... Respondent.
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri P.K. Paul, for appellants.
Shri P.K. Shukla, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 21/05/2012 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against, order dated 12.10.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baikunthpur, Korea (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), passed in // 2 // Complaint Case No.52/2010, whereby the complaint of the complainant/respondent herein, has been allowed against the appellants/OPs/Insurance Company and the Insurance Company, has been directed to pay Rs.85,500/- to the complainant/respondent, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from a date one year prior to the date of order and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Undisputedly, the vehicle No.C.G.16/9317 is a Marshal Jeep, registered in the name of complainant/respondent. This vehicle was insured with the appellants/Insurance Company, for a period between 29.07.2006 to 28.07.2007. It suffered road accident on 30.03.2007. Then a Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who assessed the loss to the vehicle, but Insurance Company had not paid any amount of compensation to the complainant on the pretext that the vehicle in question was being used in violation to the terms of the insurance policy and so, the complainant, is not entitled for any compensation against own damage claim.
3. In reply to the complaint filed before District Forum by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, the same defence was taken by the Insurance Company by saying that at the relevant time, the vehicle in question, was used by the complainant for hiring purposes, which was gross // 3 // violation of the terms of the insurance policy and, so, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions of both parties, by the impugned order held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation and directed to pay the amount, as aforesaid, in para one.
5. After having heard the arguments advanced by both parties and having gone through the record of the District Forum, we are of the view that the order recorded by the District Forum, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside on the following grounds.
6. The insurance policy issued in respect of the questioned vehicle has been brought on record by the Insurance Company before us. The policy shows that it was a "Package Policy for Zone B Private Car". It says that it was issued for the use of vehicle as a Private Car and vehicle was also insured as such for the purpose of using it as Private Car. The Claim Form submitted by the complainant/respondent before Insurance Company was also brought on record by the Insurance Company as document No.2 and the Column No.2A(b) of that Claim Form in unambiguous terms says that the vehicle in question was used for hiring purpose at the time of accident. In this column, the question which was asked was that "for what purpose, // 4 // the vehicle was being used at the time of accident" and the answer given by the claimant/complainant was that "for hire purpose". This is a Claim Form signed by the complainant/respondent himself both in English and Hindi languages. The Claim Form is also in both languages Hindi and English. It also contained declaration of the complainant/claimant to the effect that to the best of his knowledge and belief, the statement which has been given in the Claim Form was given by him in every respect. It has also been declared by him that in future, if the Company will found that any fact has been concealed by him or a false or fraudulent statement has been given by him, then policy shall be void and all rights to recover thereunder in respect of past or future accidents shall be forfeited.
7. By this declaration, the statements recorded in the Claim Form have been made binding upon the complainant/respondent and he agreed that if any statement is found false, then benefits under the policy will not be payable by the Insurance Company. In the facts of the present case, the statement was to the effect that the questioned vehicle was used by the complainant/respondent for hire purpose. Nothing contrary has been stated by the complainant/respondent in the complaint. In fact in the complaint, it has not been stated as to who were boarding in the questioned vehicle at the time of accident. Only in paragraph No.3 of the complaint, it has been stated that // 5 // vehicle suffered accident, while it was on its way towards Chirmiri from Orissa State. It has also not been described as to how many persons suffered injuries in that accident and what was cause of the accident. Thus, nothing specific was stated by the complainant/respondent in the complaint. Affidavit of the complainant/respondent is further restricted to the statement that the facts stated in the complaint are true to his personal knowledge. Apart from this verification of the facts in the complaint, nothing more was stated by him before District Forum. Thus, there is nothing on the basis of which, it can be said that whatever has been stated by the complainant/respondent in the Claim Form, was not a true statement. If it was a true statement, then the Insurance Company, is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant/respondent and if it was a false statement, then also on account of the declaration made by the complainant/respondent himself, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to him as contract of insurance has become void on account of giving false statement.
8. Before us, the complainant/respondent had tried to say in his affidavit that on the date of incident, the vehicle in question was coming towards his residence, along with his relatives and family members. This statement has been made after more than five years. It is clear cut afterthought on the part of the complainant/respondent // 6 // and on the basis of this afterthought statement, the statement made by the complainant/respondent in the Claim Form, cannot be disbelieved or does not become suspicious, because the statement given in the Claim Form was the admission of facts immediately after the incident. The incident was that of 30.03.2007 and the Claim Form was submitted on 27.06.2007. In the meantime, the incident was also reported to the Police at Orissa, but the photocopy of the First Information Report of the Orissa Police, which has been filed by the complainant/respondent before District Forum, is in Oriya language, which was not the language of the District Forum. Nothing can be gathered from that photocopy of the First Information Report, so that document is also of no help to the complainant/respondent. If a translation of that First Information Report could be filed before District Forum and if in that First Information Report something contrary to the statement given by the complainant/respondent in the Claim Forum was stated, even then the admission of the complainant/respondent, will remain to have binding effect upon the complainant/respondent being the best evidence against him, and therefore, if claim filed by the complainant/respondent has been repudiated on the ground that vehicle was being used contrary to the terms of the insurance policy, then such repudiation of claim by the Insurance Company, does not come in the category of any deficiency in service.
// 7 //
9. We find that District Forum has not taken any pain to consider as to what was the effect of the admission in the Claim Form submitted by the complainant/respondent before Insurance Company and whether Insurance Company was still liable to pay compensation to the complainant/respondent, though the questioned vehicle was being used for hire or reward. As this question has completely escaped from the mind of the District Forum, therefore, no specific finding has been recorded on this question.
10. No other point has been argued before us by any of the parties.
11. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant/respondent before District Forum stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/05/2012 /05/2012