State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sampuran Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 11 May, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.234 of 2016
Date of institution : 21.03.2016
Date of decision : 11.05.2016
Sampuran Singh son of Harnam Singh, resident of village Saidipur,
Tehsil and District Pathankot.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Divisional Office,
Gurdaspur Road, Pathankot, through its Divisional Manager.
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Branch Office at G.T.
Road, Mandi Gurdaspur Road, through its Branch Manager.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
22.01.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Amit Babbar, Advocate JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
Sampuran Singh, complainant/appellant, was the owner of car bearing No.PB-35-P-4310; which he got insured with National Insurance Company Limited (opposite parties/respondents) for the period 26.03.2014 to 25.03.2015. According to him, this vehicle met with an accident on 11.12.2014 near Nirankari Bhawan, Sujanpur, when an animal came in front of the same and to save that animal, First Appeal No.234 of 2016 2 he tried to stop it and lost the balance; as a result of which the car struck in the tree and got damaged. He lodged DDR dated 12.12.2014 in respect of that accident and lodged his claim with the opposite parties. The surveyor was appointed, but the claim was not paid by the Insurance Company and the same was repudiated, vide letter dated 31.07.2015. The complainant filed complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum"), challenging that repudiation as illegal, null and void. He alleged therein that the Insurance Company repudiated his claim, on the ground that the Investigator, during his investigation, found that the car had not met with accident, as alleged by him, but was damaged in an accident in District Ludhiana. This story put forward by the Insurance Company is false, frivolous and has been made with a mala fide intention. There was no need to concoct such a story, as he was entitled to the claim under the Policy for the damage to the car. He paid an amount of Rs.80,900/- to Kashmir Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Dalhousie Road, Panthankot, for the repairs of the car and he is entitled to that amount, by virtue of the terms and conditions of the Policy and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the same, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the realization of that amount; in addition to Rs.10,000/-, as the compensation for the harassment suffered by him and Rs.8,000/- for its deficiency in service.
2. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties/Insurance Company, by filing written reply/written version First Appeal No.234 of 2016 3 before the District Forum. It averred therein that the Investigator was appointed by it; who found the story, as put forward by the complainant, to be false. It becomes clear from the Investigation Report dated 27.07.2015 that the car had not met with the alleged accident at the spot, as alleged by the complainant, and that the same had taken place in District Ludhiana; after which the complainant kept the damaged car at his residence for a long time. The complainant had not cooperated during that investigation and concealed the material facts from that Investigator. Even Vishal Gupta, Surveyor, mentioned in his Survey Report that the damage sustained to the car did not corroborate with the cause of loss. It was in view of those reports that the claim made by the complainant under the Policy was repudiated. Even if the District Forum comes to the conclusion that it is liable under the Insurance Policy, even in that case its liability is only as per the Surveyor's Report and as per the terms and conditions of the Policy itself. The Surveyor, in his Report dated 24.01.2015, assessed the loss at Rs.61,964/- and, as such, its liability cannot be more than that amount. It took up preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and the same is barred by limitation. It prayed for the dismissal thereof.
3. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide order dated 22.01.2016. Feeling First Appeal No.234 of 2016 4 aggrieved by that order, the complainant has preferred the present appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and have carefully gone through the records of the District Forum; which were called at the admission stage of the appeal.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the District Forum committed an illegality, by recording its findings on the basis of the Report of the Investigator; which is based upon the surmises and conjectures. That Investigation Report could not have been taken into consideration, as the complainant was never associated in that investigation and the same was conducted at his back. No such evidence was collected by the Investigator, in support of his conclusion that the accident had taken place in District Ludhiana and not at the spot, as alleged by the complainant. No evidence was collected by the Investigator, in support of the conclusions recorded in the report and, as such, no finding could have been recorded on the basis of that conclusion. It cannot be said that the cogent and convincing evidence produced by the complainant, for proving that the accident took place at the place and in the manner mentioned in the complaint, stands rebutted by the said conclusion. That itself is a ground for admitting the appeal to be heard on merits.
6. For proving the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit, Ex.C-1; in which he deposed about all the facts, as detailed in the complaint. He First Appeal No.234 of 2016 5 deposed therein that the car met with an accident on 11.12.2014, when he reached near Nirankari Bhawan, Sujanpur, and an animal came in front of the same and to save that animal, he tried to stop the car, lost the balance and the same struck in the tree and got damaged. He also deposed that DDR dated 12.12.2014 was duly recorded about this accident. That DDR was proved as Ex.C-8 and the same was recorded on the basis of the statement of the complainant and at that time also he reported the same facts, as detailed in the complaint.
7. To rebut that evidence, the Insurance Company proved on record the Investigation Report dated 27.07.2015, Ex.OP-4, and Report of the Surveyor, Vishal Gupta, Ex.OP-8. The Investigation Report was authored by Sarv Daman Bhalla and his affidavit was proved on the record as Ex.OP-2. In that affidavit, he duly proved that Report and also the fact that he had collected information from different quarters for recording the conclusions in the Report.
8. There is no merit in the argument raised by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant was not joined in the investigation by this Investigating Officer. The complainant did not depose about that fact in his affidavit and it is very much incorporated in the report, Ex.OP-4, that he was duly contacted, but he did not cooperate to give the written statement; though letters were written to him to cooperate with the Investigator. Those letters were proved on record as Ex.OP-6 and Ex.OP-7. When such is the case, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to allege that he First Appeal No.234 of 2016 6 was not joined in the investigation and, as such, the Investigation Report cannot be used against him.
9. We are not inclined to take into consideration the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer that the accident had taken place in District Ludhiana; as that conclusion was arrived at by him, on the ground that he contacted people at various locations and they confirmed that the vehicle had met with an accident somewhere in District Ludhiana. Statements of those persons were not made a part of the Report, nor their names have been disclosed. The conclusion based on such an information, so collected, cannot be taken into consideration.
10. It is mentioned in the Report that the Investigator visited the spot of alleged place of accident and had taken the photographs, which confirmed that there was no tree on the right side of the road and all those trees were nearly 25 feet away from the edge of the road and there was deep ditch between the road and those trees and, as such, the car going out off the road would fall in the ditch and would not hit the tree. Those photographs have been made part of the Report. The conclusion of the Investigator is well based upon those photographs and those totally falsify the story put forward by the complainant. If the accident had actually taken at that place, why the complainant did not inform the Insurance Company immediately and why he removed the car from that place to deprive the Insurance Company the opportunity of spot verification by the Surveyor, which is generally called "Spot Survey"? That circumstance also creates a First Appeal No.234 of 2016 7 doubt in the story put forward by the complainant and inspires confidence in the finding arrived at by the Investigating Officer.
11. That finding is further supported by the Report of the Surveyor, Ex.OP-8; in which he recorded that the damages sustained to the vehicle were external and accidental in nature and the extent and nature of loss do not confirm to the cause of loss. The District Forum did not commit any illegality, by recording a finding on the basis of this evidence produced against the complainant that the car never met with the alleged accident at the spot, alleged by the complainant. The Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant on that ground. We do not find any ground to admit this appeal to be heard on merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER May 11, 2016.
(Gurmeet S)