REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

        The present revision petition is filed against the judgment dated 10.08.2015 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. FA/ 14/ 743.

2.     The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner/complainant is registered owner of vehicle Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.C.G.04-B-8533. He had taken insurance policy No. VP 00466658000100 from the respondent/ opposite party for the period from 30.07.2009 to 29.07.2010. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5,276/- towards premium amount. On 05.10.2009, the petitioner was returning to Raipur from Motipur and when he reached near Patan Road, some animals came in the way, then the petitioner turned his vehicle as a result of which the vehicle in question dashed against another vehicle Tata 407, which was standing near the road and at that time. As it was raining, the petitioner could not see the stationery Tata 407. The petitioner and his son sustained simple injuries and the vehicle in question was damaged. The respondent was intimated regarding the accident on the next day. The respondent asked the petitioner to take the vehicle in question to the garage and thereafter the vehicle in question was taken by the petitioner to garage through tow chain. The vehicle in question was got repaired. The repairer told the petitioner that repairing charges were about Rs.1,40,000/- and without receiving the money, the repairer would not return the vehicle in question to the petitioner The petitioner contacted the owner of the garage, but the vehicle was not handed over to the petitioner. The respondent did not settle the claim of the petitioner and thus committed deficiency in service. Then the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting relief as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint and he is entitled for getting the following relief:

        (a) Repairing expense Rs.1,35,388/- for the vehicle from the respondent to the petitioner;

        (b)    12% interest be availed on the claim amount from 05.11.2009 till payment;

        (c )   Rs.20,000/- be given as monetary and mental pain from the respondent;

        (d)    Any other relief as deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court other than suit cost be availed to the petitioner.

3.     The respondent filed their written statement and raised preliminary objections. The respondent averred that the complaint was neither maintainable in law or on merits and no cause had arisen to the petitioner to prefer this complaint as the motor claim has been decided on merits by the respondent and the respondent repudiated the claim on 24.06.20210. The petitioner suppressed some material facts before the District Forum and did not disclose that the claim had been repudiated on 24.06.2010. The petitioner had again suppressed another fact that the petitioner had submitted a claim for damages of the vehicle and in the claim form the date of accident had been intimated as 02.10.2009 but before the District Forum, the date of incident has been mentioned as 05.10.2009. The petitioner had played a foul game and was trying to take undue advantage of summary proceedings of the Consumer Protection Act,, 1986. Hence, the present complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost. After lodging of own damage claim by the petitioner, the respondent had appointed an independent Investigator M/s Reliable Investigation Agency of Raipur. The Investigator had met with the petitioner and requested for providing authentic documents would prove that the accident of insured vehicle had occurred on 2nd of October, 2009. The petitioner did not submit the same and hence the Investigator sent a letter on 5th of February, 2010 for obtaining such detail but the petitioner again did not provide the same. The claim as lodged by the petitioner had been repudiated on merits on 24.06.2010 by mentioning that the alleged accident had occurred more than two months prior to the date mentioned by the petitioner. The petitioner had concealed this important information from the respondent and mis-represented the facts pertaining to the accident to obtain the benefits of the policy, which amounts to violation of basic principle of Utmost Good Faith and the policy would thus stand cancelled from the date of inception itself. The petitioner has suppressed the material facts and the claim has been repudiated by the respondent on merits.

4.     Earlier, the petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum and vide ex-parte order dated 21.10.2010, the learned District Forum had directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,288/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. The respondent had filed appeal No.752/2010 before the State Commission against the order dated 21.10.2010. The State Commission vide their order dated 20.07.2011 remanded the case back to the District Forum for deciding the matter afresh after providing further opportunity to the respondent (complainant) for leading evidence in rebuttal.

5.     The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (‘the District Forum) vide its order dated 10.09.2014 while allowing the complaint gave the following order:

“Hence, as above, with complete analysis basis we admitted the complaint and ordered that within one month from this order:

1. The non-applicant be paid Rs.1,33,288/- with 12% simple annual interest from11.08.2010 to till payment;

2. Non applicant be paid Rs.20,000/- as mental anguish to the complainant; and

3. Non applicant be paid Rs.10,000/- as advocate fees and suit cost to the complainant”.

6.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/ opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while allowing the appeal has observed as under:

“The Investigator also observed that the vehicle was parked in the garage 2 months before the said incident of accident. The appellant (O.P.N) appointed Shri G.C. Agrawal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor for assessment of loss. Shri G.C. Agrawal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, submitted his final report dated 25.06.2010, in which he mentioned that "Looking to the nature and extent of damages the accident seems to be old, and it is informed to the claim officer immediately after the first survey." The respondent (complainant) pleaded that the vehicle in question was taken to garage of one Mr. Chandrakar, where the vehicle is repaired. The respondent (complainant) filed job cards dated 06.10.2009 (Annexure 2 and Annexure 3) wherein the name of the garage is not mentioned. The respondent (complainant) has filed Cash / Credit Memo No.159 and 160 dated 29.03.2010 (Annexure 4 & 5) issued by Engineers Automobile, Raipur (C.G.) In both the cash / credit memo, the date 29.03.2010 is mentioned. The appellant (O.P.) filed a letter dated 21.05.2010 sent by Engineers Automobiles to The Claim Manager, H.D.F.C. G.I.C. Ltd. , Indore (M.P.), in which it is mentioned that "As per information by Mr. Manoj Khare to you that the accident of the vehicle was occurred on 02.10.2009 but the vehicle was came to our workshop before the app. 02 months of the accident date as informed by Mr. Manoj Khare to you. We have taken the vehicle for repairing officially dated on 06.10.2009."

Statement of Santosh Dewangan, dated 28.01.2010 has been filed by the appellant (O.P.) in which he stated that Pandey Fuel Petrol Pump is situated near Fundar Mod, Patan Road, District Raipur where he was working since last one and half year. On 02.10.2009 no accident was took place in front of the said petrol pump.

In the investigation report, the Investigator mentioned that the Investigator went to Patan Police Station and met with Mr. Vijay Sahu, the ASI at Patan Police Station, who informed the Investigator that no information about the accident of the insured vehicle was received in Police Station, Patan. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the incident was highly suspicious. In the complaint and affidavit of the respondent (complainant), the date of incident is mentioned as 05.10.2009 whereas in the claim form the date of incident is mentioned as 02.10.2009. According to the Investigator and letter dated 21.05.2010 sent by the Engineers Automobile to the Claim Manager, H.D.F.C. G.I.C. Ltd. Indore (M.P.) it is established that the vehicle in question was kept in garage of one Mr. Chandrakar before 2 months of the occurrence of the said accident.

The respondent (complainant), has not been able to prove that on 05.10.2009, the vehicle in question dashed with another vehicle Tata 407, therefore, the fact of accident, mentioned by the respondent (complainant) in the complaint, is suspicious, and therefore, the respondent (complainant), is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.) and the appellant (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant).

Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is allowed and impugned order dated 10.09.2014, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the consumer complaint also stands dismissed”.

7.     Hence, the present revision petition.

8.     We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is bad in law because the vehicle was repaired in Chandrakar garage and not at Engineers Automobiles. As per the learned counsel for the respondent, the owner of the garage was Mr Chandrakar and the name of the work shop was Engineers Automobiles which was the authorised workshop of Maruti.

9.     We find from the record that in the complaint it is clearly mentioned in paragraph 6, Shri Chandrakar is the owner of the garage. Surprisingly, the name of the garage has not been mentioned in the complaint or even the job card. However, there is a letter placed on the file from the Engineers Automobiles to the Claim Manager, of the HDFC which reads as under:

“Regarding: OD Claim no. 317754; Name of Insured – Mr Manoj Khare; V/c Regn No. Cc04B 8533 (M/ALTO)

Dear Sir,

This is to inform you that above-mentioned vehicle was come to our workshop for repairing as the vehicle was met with an accident and got damage. As per information by Mr Manoj Khare to you that the accident of the vehicle was occurred on 02.10.2009 but the vehicle came to our workshop before the app.02 months of the accident date as informed by Mr Manoj Khare to you. We have taken the vehicle for repairing officially dated 06.10.2009.

        So this is for your kind information.

        Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Engineers Automobile”

10.    It would appear from that, the name of the garage was Engineers Automobile and the owner was Mr Chandrakar.

11.    We have also perused the statement of Santosh Dewangan which is placed on record. The same reads as under:

“I Santosh Dewangan son of Man Singh Dewangan, Age 24 years residing at village Patan District Durga CG.

I am working in Pandey Petrol Pump Funder turn Patan Road, District Raipur, CG. I am working for the last 1 ½ years in Pandey Petrol Pump. On 02.10.2009 in night I was working on 02.10.2009 in front of our petrol pump no vehicle met with an accident and thereafter in front of our petrol pump I have no information regarding any vehicle having met with accident.

Above statement are true and written according to me”.

12.    We have also carefully gone through the repudiation letter dated 24.04.2010 which reads as under:

“Reference: Your motor own damage Claim no. 317754 for accidental damages to the insured car covered by policy no. VP00496658000100.

Dear Sir,

We refer to your above-mentioned claim for damages caused to your car in an accident allegedly on 02.10.2009. You have intimated the claim to the company on 09.10.2009.

Our investigations have revealed that the accident date as intimated by you is not correct and that actually the accident had occurred about more than two months prior to the date mentioned by you, implying that the accident had occurred on 02.08.2009 or even before that, in which case the loss may not at all be covered in the policy.

You have apparently concealed very important information from us and misrepresented the facts pertaining to the accident to obtain the benefits of the policy, which amounts to violation of the basic principle of utmost good faith, and the policy stands cancelled from the date of inception itself. (Please delete if not required to be written).

May we draw your attention to the following conditions of the insurance policy issued to you:

8.     The due observance and fulfilment of the terms, conditions and endorsements of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the said proposal shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy.

In the circumstances, we are constrained to treat your claim as ‘No claim’ on account of misrepresentation of material facts.”

13.    This was based on the investigation report of the reliable investigation agency dated 22.05.2010. The relevant extracts are as under :

“We then met with Mr Santosh Devangan who is working at Pandey Fuels Petrol Pump which is situated just near to the spot and after lots of talks with Mr Santosh he informed us that there is no such accident was occurred in that place. We have also collected the written statement from Mr Santosh which is enclosed herewith.

We also went to Patan Police station and met with Mr Vijay Sahu the ASI at Patan Police station and after checking the records he informed us that they have no information about the accident of the IV.

We then went to the work of Engineer Motors, Raipur (CG) and met with Mr Chandrakar Contact number 09425504145 and he gave us the job card of the IV vide number 765 dated 06.10.2009.

Please note that as per the insured that on 09.3.10.2009 he took the IV to the workshop but as per the copy of the job card the IV was came to the workshop on 06.10.2009.

We then once again went to the workshop of Engineer Automobiles and met with Chandrakar Contact number 09425504145 and the Mr Chandrakar informed us that the IV was came to their workshop before the 02 months of the accident date as informed by insured to you.

He also informed us that then on 06.10.2009 officially they have taken the IV for repairing. We have also taken the written confirmation from Mr Chandrakar of Engineer Motors which is enclosed herewith.

Conclusion:

As per the damages seen in the IV we are in the opinion that the accident of the IV was although occurred but as per the information received from the workshop that the IV was came before the 02 months of the accident date as informed by insured to you.

Insured is trying to hide the facts and not informing the actual date and cause of accident.”

14.    In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever that the said accident took place in October 2009 and not about two months prior to that date.

18.    In view of the forgoing, we find that there is, no jurisdictional or legal error or misrepresentation of facts have been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act.  The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is dismissed and we uphold the order of the State Commission.