National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Regional Manager, National Insurance ... vs Ranpal Singh on 16 October, 2019
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2324 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 12/04/2016 in Appeal No. 1553/2015 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE N/NLVH 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTENTION, NEW DELHI-110055 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RANPAL SINGH S/O. SH. CHANDGI RAM, R/O. K-1, MAHAVEER NAGAR, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN-302018 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, Advocate Dated : 16 Oct 2019 ORDER Per Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 12.04.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short "the State Commission") in First Appeal Nos. 1553 of 2015 and 137 of 2016 preferred by National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company") and the Complainant respectively. By the impugned order, the State has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and partly allowed the Complaint modifying the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur IV, Jaipur (in short "the District Forum") to the extent of enhancing the claim amount from ₹2,13,021.63 to ₹3,06,621/-, while confirming the rest of the order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had insured his Truck Registration No. RJ 14 GC 9402 for all risks for an amount of ₹13,26,500/- covering the period from 04.07.2012 to 03.07.2013. While so, on 17.07.2012, when the insured vehicle was being driven by driver Madan Lal, the Truck met with an Accident, while being driven from Jaipur to Ajmer. The said information was immediately given to the Insurance Company which appointed a Surveyor. The Complainant got the vehicle repaired and spent an amount of ₹4,65,520/- towards repairs and submitted the entire claim with the necessary documents to the Insurance Company, but despite repeated requests the said claim was not settled. On 05.02.2013, the Complainant received a letter seeking the Driving License of late Shri Pappu Meena, the Khalasi of the Truck. The Complainant gave a detailed reply on 16.02.2013 and demanded for the Inspection Report and the copy of the statements based on which the Insurance Company has raised this doubt. Thereafter, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 10.07.2013 on the ground that Shri Pappu Meena was the Driver of the vehicle and that he did not have a valid Driving License. It is averred in the Complaint that the Driving License of Shri Madan Lal was presented at the time of the claim as he alone was driving the vehicle. The FIR No. 88/12 registered also shows that the Driver of the said vehicle was Madan Lal Meena and the challan was also presented against the same Madan Lal Meena. Hence the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking the claim amount of ₹4,65,506/- with interest, compensation and costs.
3. The Insurance Company filed their Written Version admitting the issuance of the Policy but stated that as per their Inspection Report and the statement of Driver and Khalasi of the other truck involved in accident, the person who died was Shri Pappu Meena, who was driving the vehicle and did not have a valid Driving License. At the time of incident only Pappu Meena was driving the vehicle and the Complainant had deliberately recorded that the Madan Lal was driving because he had a valid Driving License. The investigator Mr. Kuldeep Bagora obtained a Written Statement of Shri Rajjak Bhai, driver of the colliding truck and the said Rajjak mentioned that there were two persons in the Truck including the Driver and that one of them died on the spot and that both of them was taken to the Government Hospital, Ajmer by 108 Ambulance. The spot Surveyor inspected the site and recorded that the vehicle driver has died whereas the insured has mentioned that the Khalasi had died. It is averred that the insured only with the intention of getting the claim had changed the name of the driver only because Pappu Meena did not have a Driving License and hence their repudiation is justified. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay an amount of ₹2,13,021.63 towards Insurance Claim to the Complaint after deducting the salvage value at ₹15,000/- from the depreciated value of ₹2,28,021.63 as assessed by the Final Surveyor, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint i.e. 17.02.2014 till the date of realization. The District Forum also awarded compensation of ₹2,500/- and costs of ₹2,000/-.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, both the Insurance Company and the Complainant preferred Appeals before the State Commission, which while concurring with the finding of the District Forum has partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant and modified the order of the State Commission to the extent indicated above. The Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was dismissed.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that Shri Pappu Meena was the driver of the vehicle and not the Khalasi; that the FIR was registered on the statement of the occupant of the other truck driver Mr. Rajjak Khan, who stated that the persons in the insured Truck was Mr. Pappu Meena and Mr. Ramdev sustained injuries. He further submitted that their investigator and spot surveyor have stated that the death of the Driver of the vehicle was imminent, whereas the insured had mentioned the Khalasi had died. He argued that both the fora below have not taken this aspect into consideration and that insured had stated that Mr. Madan Lal was driving the vehicle only because Mr. Pappu Meena did not have a valid Driving License.
6. A brief perusal of the Charge Sheet dated 28.07.2012, shows that it was filed against Mr. Madan Lal for offences under Section 279, 337, 304A IPC. It is also an admitted fact that a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Rajsamand filed by Mr. Narayan singh alias Pappu Singh Rawat, the Khalasi of the other Truck involved in accident, which evidences that Madan Lal was the Driver. Even the FIR does not specifically states that Mr. Pappu Meena was driving the accidental vehicle. Merely, because the investigator has obtained statement of one Mr. Rajjak Bhai driving the vehicle, which has collided with the said Trucks that Mr. Pappu Meena was driving the vehicle, without any substantial evidence, additionally by the Insurance Company, the same statement cannot be solely relied upon.
7. We find force in the contention of the of the learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant that the Charge Sheet read with the FIR and the claim made before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), establish that Mr. Madan Lal was driving the vehicle. As the repudiation was based only on the assumption that Pappu Meena was driving the vehicle and that he did not have a valid Driving License, we are of the considered view that this repudiation is unjustified. Hence we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent finding of both the fora below and we dismiss the Revision Petition specially keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2 (2010) CPJ 19 (SC).
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER