State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Om Prakash Sharma vs New India Assurance Company Limited on 5 December, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRA DUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 250 / 2005
Om Prakash Sharma S/o Sh. Murari Lal Sharma
R/o Avas Vikas, Rudrapur
District Udham Singh Nagar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited
Branch Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar
through its Branch Manager
.....Respondent / Opposite Party
None for the Appellant
Sh. Niranjan Prakash, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 05/12/2008
ORDER
(Per: C.C. Pant, Member):
This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.10.2005 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 18 / 2002, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.
2. The consumer complaint was filed by Sh. Om Prakash Sharma against The New India Assurance Company Limited (for short "insurer"). Sh. Om Prakash Sharma was the registered owner of a 1991 model Tata Truck (Heavy Goods Vehicle) having registration No. UP02 / 9897. The said vehicle was insured with the insurer for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the period from 26.07.2001 to 25.07.2002. It has been stated in the complaint that on 20.06.2002 at about 5:00 a.m., the said vehicle, when it was on way to a stone crusher at Haldu Chaur, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, dashed against a tree in an attempt to 2 save a cow, which had come across the road. The collision caused fire in the vehicle, which was totally damaged. A report was lodged with the Police Station, Lalkuan and the insurer was also intimated immediately regarding the accident. The surveyor appointed by the insurer, conducted the spot survey and necessary investigation and assessed the loss. However, the claim submitted to the insurer for indemnification of the loss, was repudiated by the insurer. Upon this, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, which was dismissed by the District Forum per order dated 06.10.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.
3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant - complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent - insurer. We have also perused the material placed on record.
4. In this case, the facts and circumstances appear to be self-contradictory. In the complaint, the complainant has said that the vehicle was under the supervision of Sh. Dhananjay Pandey. Sh. Dhananjay Pandey, being the caretaker of the vehicle, did all the formalities in respect of the accident. Even the claim form was submitted by the caretaker. As he (complainant) was suffering from a chronic disease, he had appointed Sh. Dhananjay Pandey as the caretaker of the vehicle. In the statement dated 21.07.2002 (Paper Nos. 21/4 to 21/5 of the original record), recorded by the investigator, Sh. Om Prakash Sharma - complainant has said that he had sold the said vehicle on 05.06.2002 to Sh. Dhananjay Pandey for sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and that he had not submitted any claim to the insurer because he did not know about the accident and alleged fire in the vehicle on 20.06.2002.
35. However, we find that the signatures of Sh. Om Prakash Sharma are quite different from the one, he has put on the complaint and Vakalatnama in favour of Sh. Zafar Ullah Siddiqui, Advocate. In his letter dated 20.06.2002 (Paper No. 21/6), Sh. Dhananjay Dutt Pandey, while intimating the insurer in respect of the accident, has referred to the vehicle in question as his own vehicle (meri gari No. UP02 / 9897). In an affidavit dated 26.06.2002 (Paper No. 21/8), Sh. Chandra Singh, driver of the vehicle No. UP02 / 9897, has affirmed that the truck belonged to Sh. Dhananjay Pandey. He has further stated that in the said accident, the vehicle had not dashed against the tree and also that the alleged fire had not taken place in his presence.
6. In a statement dated 28.06.2002 recorded by the investigator, Sh. Dhananjay Dutt Pandey has said that he was the owner of the truck No. UP02 / 9897, which was purchased by him from Sh. Om Prakash Sharma for sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-, about 1½ months ago. However, he has again reiterated that the said truck dashed against a tree in an attempt to save a cow, which had come across the road. He had also stated that this mishap caused fire in the vehicle, damaging the vehicle totally. He has confirmed that a report to the Police Station, Lalkuan was lodged by him and had also intimated the office of the insurer. A report dated 02.08.2002 (Paper Nos. 21/16 to 21/17) of Sh. Nanhey Lal, Sub-Inspector, which he has addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, also says that the investigation conducted by him, revealed that someone had attempted to burn the vehicle by putting some bagasse near the right rear tyre of the vehicle. Though the tyre got slightly burnt, but it could not catch fire. At about 7:00 a.m., a telephone call was received that said truck was having flames. The fire brigade's help was taken to extinguish the fire. As per the report, Sh. Dhananjay Pandey had fabricated this case of accident with ulterior motive of claiming compensation from 4 the insurer. The road, where the accident has alleged to have occurred, is a kutcha road, having a number of pits. One can not drive a vehicle at a high speed in the said place. Therefore, there is no question of the vehicle catching fire due to its dashing against the tree.
7. Thus, this case being a bundle of concocted and contradictory facts, the repudiation of the claim by the insurer - respondent, can not be said to be unjustified and, therefore, the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant, is fit to be upheld.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) Kawal