19/11/2014- The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.
- Heard the parties on the prayer for condoning the delay of about 33 days in filing this appeal.
- On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
- Heard the parties on merit.
- Learned Counsel for the Complainant/appellant submitted that the complaint has been dismissed wrongly by Learned District Forum interalia, on the ground that the complainant did not establish that he submitted relevant document before the Insurance Company/ Respondent; that he did not give information of the accident within time; that no driving licence of the driver was filed; that no documentary evidence was filed to prove the factum of accident of the Truck ; and that the case was time barred.
He further submitted that the accident took place on 10.12.99 and immediately a Sanha was lodged. On the next day the complainant informed about the accident and sent all the papers to the Insurance Company. No further documents were asked from the complainant by the Insurance Company. The Surveyor submitted it’s report to the Insurance Company on 26.12.2000. If the complainant did not inform the Insurance Company and did not send the relevant documents, how the Surveyor could be appointed and how could he submit his report. The factum of accident is proved by the Surveyor’s report. Further the Surveyor has noted that the driving licence was produced. He further submitted that the Insurance Company did not repudiate the claim and therefore it cannot be said that the complaint was time barred. Though, there was a delay in filing the complaint but it was due to the verbal assurance given by the Insurance Company to settle the claim. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that at least to the extent of Surveyor’s report, claim should have been allowed.
- On the other hand, Mr. Pratush Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent- Insurance Company submitted as follow; the complainant did not prove the factum of accident; did not produce the driving licence and above all the complaint itself was hopelessly time barred.
- As the Surveyor’s report was not on the record, we directed Mr. P. Kumar to produce it’s copy from the original file of the Insurance Company, which was furnished.
From the Surveyor’s Report, it appears that the photocopy of the driving licence was produced by the complainant, however, Surveyor observed that original be checked up. Further the Surveyor has noted in the Column 8- “Cause and Nature of Accident” as follows:-
“ According to Sanha, while the insured’s vehicle was proceeding near the place of accident, suddenly an ox came in front of the vehicle, to save the same the insured’ driver took brake, but it became unbalanced and was over turned on road with its left side on ground. Resulting damage to insured’s vehicle. Third party loss/injuries- There was no loss/injuries reported involved in this accident. OBSERVATIONS- The cause of loss as narrated above seems to be in accordance with the damages noticed during our inspection.”
- It further appears from the Surveyor’s report that he acted under the instruction received from the Insurance Company. The papers were collected. The vehicle was inspected. The damage was noted. Photographs were taken. He considered the copy of Sanha No. 165 dated 10.12.1999.The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 43,591.55.
- In the circumstances, only because Sanha was lodged, instead of FIR, it cannot be said that the Complainant did not prove the factum of accident. It further appears that the Photocopy of the driving licence was produced. The Insurance Company could ask for the original.
- It further appears that the complainant did not submit filled up claim form, but there is nothing to show that the Insurance Company responded to the information sent by the complainant, (along with some papers) asking him to submit claim in the Form or to furnish further documents.
10. The Insurance Company cannot be allowed to take advantage of it’s own lapses by contending that the claim was time barred as the cause of action should be counted from the date of accident, in absence of any repudiation letter. This view finds support from the judgement dated 3.4.2014, passed in F.A. No. 119 of 2011 National Insurance Co. vs. Idrish Ansari by this Forum.
11. It is not disputed that it was a comprehensive Insurance Policy and therefore the complainant could claim own damage also.
12. It is true that the complaint was filed on 7.7.2006 after a long delay but the complaint cannot be said to be time barred as there was no response or repudiation letter from the Insurance Company. The Complainant has not gained anything from the delay.
13. After hearing the parties at length and considering the materials placed before us, we find merit in this appeal.
Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the Insurance Company/ Respondent is directed to handover a cheque of Rs. 43,591.55 being the damage assessed by the Surveyor, to the complainant/ appellant on 2.12.2014, before this Forum, failing which the Insurance Company will also be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment/ realization.
Let, a free copy of this order be handed over to the parties.
Ranchi
Dated:-19-11-2014
