National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. R.K. Marble Pvt. Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 17 October, 2023
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3340 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 21/07/2017 in Appeal No. 1045/2013 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. M/S. R.K. MARBLE PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR REGD. OFFICE AT MAKRANA ROAD, MADANGANJ KISHANGARH DISTRICT-AJMER-305801 RAJASHTAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH BRANCH OFFICE DIVISIONAL OFFICE PATWARI BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, M G ROAD, DISTRICT-AJMER-305001 RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI,PRESIDENT
FOR THE PETITIONER : APPEARANCE NOT MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT : MS. MEENAKSHI MIDHA, ADVOCATE
MR. GARV SINGH, ADVOCATE
Dated : 17 October 2023 ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Revisionists and learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. The District Commission, Ajmer vide Order dated 17.09.2013 rejected the claim of the revisionist in Complaint No. 142 of 2011 against which an Appeal was preferred First Appeal No. 1045 of 2013 before the State Commission, Rajasthan that was also dismissed on 21.07.2017 confirming the Order of the District Commission.
2. This Revision questions the correctness of the decisions above and arises out of an Insurance claim which has been described as an accident of a vehicle by the Revisionists. The accident carrying a marble consignment of slabs is stated to have occurred when the vehicle carrying the same met with a collision with another vehicle coming from behind and overtaking while the goods were being transported to its destination. The accident is said to have taken place on 23.05.2010 somewhere near Kalol, Vadodara in Gujrat while on its way from Kishangarh in Rajasthan to Mumbai.
3. There is no dispute that the goods were insured and the risk of an accident was covered under the Marine Cargo Open Insurance policy. There is also no dispute that the insurance cover was surviving during the duration when the accident took place. The policy was for the period 29.06.2009 to 28.06.2010. The surveyor M/s Puri and Crawford submitted a report dated 05.07.2010 The Insurance Company appointed an Investigator M/s Gee Bee Investigators who submitted their final report on 24.12.2010.
4. The claim was repudiated after two surveys were conducted on the ground that the accident of the vehicle was not established. This Repudiation letter dated 18.01.2011 is on record. The Repudiation led to the filing of the Complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum proceeded to investigate the facts as pleaded before it where the Insurance Company filed its Written Version clearly denying the claim and supported the repudiation letter referred to above.
5. In order to establish the factum of the accident learned Counsel for the Revisionists invited the attention of the Bench to the Certificate issued dated 26.05.2010 by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police of Kalol Police Station in the vicinity whereof the accident took place. The certificate recites that brakes were applied suddenly when a motorcycle came in front of the truck but simultaneously another truck loaded with bamboos hit the truck from the back side while it was trying to overtake the vehicle carrying goods. It is stated in the said certificate that the side impact of the hit had caused a damage to the marbles that was loaded in the vehicle.
6. However, there is another document which has been obtained by the Insurance Company during its second survey namely the information dated 22.12.2010 given by the Senior Sub Inspector of Police where a different story of the accident has been indicated namely that the truck was loaded and was damaged on account of having over ridden a divider. It is also stated therein that the earlier certificate was issued on the demand of the owner of the truck but the driver has specifically denied the lodging of the FIR. It is in these circumstances that the said story set up of the accident was dis-believed by the District Forum after having traversed the facts and the evidence led before it.
7. In Appeal before the State Commission, the same issue was examined and the findings of the District Forum got confirmed.
8. This Revision has been filed questioning the correctness of the second's Surveyor / Investigator's Report, the letter of repudiation and the findings recorded by the District Commission and by the State Commission.
9. The Revision before the Commission is at the best a limited Appeal and the Revision cannot travel beyond any stated irregularities, illegalities or improprieties of facts and hence the jurisdiction of Revision cannot be invoked for the purpose of reappraising the entire evidence for the purpose of assessing the findings recorded by the Foras below. Consequently, in the wake of the aforesaid findings having been arrived at there is hardly any scope for interference in this Revision.
10. However, in addition thereto it would be apt to mention that the Insurance policy covers an accident which has to be established. The vehicle may have witnessed damage in the manner as is sought to be pleaded but unfortunately could not be proved by way of Evidence. Apart from this, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has invited the attention to a couple of documents which do not form part of this Revision Petition but were part of the pleadings before the District Forum as well as also before the State Commission. The said documents are relevant and therefore deserve to be mentioned namely that the Investigator (second Surveyor or the final Surveyor) who conducted the final investigation approached the Police Station concerned in order to confirm the status or otherwise of the alleged accident as claimed by the claimant. For this the documents that have been placed are the letters dated 26.10.2010 and 29.10.2010 whereby certain queries were raised including the specific query with regard to the status of the accident and also as to under which provision was the certificate issued by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The said documents have been placed before the Bench, since this forms an interesting part of the entire claim it is worth quoting the letter dated 29.10.2010 which is extracted here as under:
"Sub: Regarding Accident to vehicle No. MH 06A Q 5849 & Certificate dated 26/05/2010.
Dear Sir, This is to inform to you that we are appointed as an Investigator by Sr. Br. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kishangarh (RAJ) on 15/10/2010 to investigate the above said matter.
Hence, we personally visited at Kalol Police Station on 26/10/2010 and try to contact you. But you are not present and not contacted personally. Hence, we handed over a letter dated 26/10/2010 to PSO Kalol. We are waiting for reply from you. But till the date there was no any reply received. Now, from this letter we again requested to you give reply on the following points.
Did you personally inspect the said vehicle at the place of accident? If yes, place of Panchnama was masde or not? If not, give reason why not done.
Did you lodge any FIR or Janvajog entry in the police station record? If "Yes" provide copy or If "No", why FIR was not lodged.
Vehicle No. MH 06AQ.5849 got damaged or not? How the said incidence was occurred. Please give details.
How, you came to know the said incidence. Please give full details.
Did you collect any documents for the said accident or not? If Yes, give us copy of the said documents.
Describe accident details, how the said accident was occurred.
Did you inspect the good loaded in the said vehicle? If Yes, please give full details of Goods.
In which condition or on who request you to issue a said certificate?
Please also describe under which section the said certificate issued. Is there any provision to issue such certificate on blank paper?
Thanking you."
11. In response to the said letter the Senior Police Sub-Inspector, Kalol Police Station issued his reply on 22.12.2010 which is extracted here as under:
Sub.:- Information about accident occurred to Truck No, MH.06AQ.5849 Ref.:- Your letter dated 29/10/2010, regarding Dear Sir, Request with respect:- With reference to the above cited subject and dated reference, on 23/05/2010 at about 11.00 p.m.-night, Truck No. MH.06AQ.5849 obstructed the traffic near Vrundavan Hotel, Kalol as said truck over ridded the road divider where four lane tract works was under progress. As there was possibility of traffic jam. Police team from Kalol Police Station went to the place of incidence and said Truck was brought to Kalol Police Station. This Truck was loaded with marble stones and only stones costing about Rs.1000/- were damaged; hence driver was not ready to lodge FIR. Further, he said that as nobody was injured in said incidence and no any damage was occurred to said truck, he wanted to ask owner of vehicle for further procedure. Truck driver gave said information. After four days i.e. on 26/05/2010, driver came to Police Station and said that his owner didn't reply anything and he wants to go. Owner asked him to bring a certificate from Police station, regarding why he halted for four days.
This, Truck No. MH.06AQ.5849, was shifted from the place, where it was over ridded a road divider, as there was possibility of traffic jam. No any FIR was lodged in Kalol Police Station about this incidence. No any further information was provided as well. As driver denied to lodge FIR no any further procedure was done. Certificate was issued on demand of Truck owner. Driver also denied to give any type of statement.
Date: 22/12/2010."
12. It is on the basis of the said information that the final Surveyor in his report dated 24.12.2010 seriously doubted the status of the accident as claimed by the Complainant and which in the opinion of this Commission also was fairly assessed by both the Foras below inasmuch as there is no such provision under Criminal Procedure Code for issuing a certificate with regard to an accident unless the same is in regard to an officially lodged FIR or entered in the general diary or processed by a court under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. There is no evidence that any such information was ever entered into the Police Diary, and in the absence thereof, the issuance of the certificate by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police becomes seriously doubtful. The Senior Sub-Inspector of Police did not respond to this query at all.
13. There is no evidence of any claim of loss having been registered by the vehicle owner for damage to the vehicle. There is nothing to indicate any claim made by the owner of the vehicle to support the incident of an accident.
14. Apart from this, it is clear that the narrative contained in the certificate and that in the Reply by the Senior Sub-Inspector of Police are divergent in so far as the nature of the accident is concerned. On the one hand the certificate indicates a side collision with another vehicle and on the other hand the information given by the Senior Sub-Inspector of Police states that the vehicle had over ridden a divider. It is also stated that the value of the damaged goods was Rs.1,000/- and therefore the driver did not lodge the F.I.R. Thus, there is absolutely no match between the two versions and therefore no mistake has been committed by the Surveyor who doubted the same and the findings recorded by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission on that count do not suffer from infirmity so as to infer any irregularity much less a material irregularity. Consequently the Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
.........................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT