DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 255 of 30.8.2007<br /> Decided on : 8.02.2008<br /> <br /> Anil Jain S/o Sh. Om Parkash, R/o H. No. 27219 (New No. 2704/9-A, Street No. 1), Aggarwal Colony, Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Guru Kanshi Road, Sharma Complex, Corner of Power House Road, Bathinda through Branch Manager.<br /> 2. ICICI Bank Limited, Vehicle Department, IInd Floor, The Mall, Bathinda through Branch Manager.<br /> 3. Padam Motors, Head Office, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda C/o Mehta Motors, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda through its Manager/Owner.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No.1 <br /> : Sh. Sanjay Garg, counsel for opposite parties No.2<br /> Opposite party No. 3 exparte<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Through this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) complainant seeks direction from this Forum to opposite party no. 1 to pay him compensation of Rs.6,57,466.45 alongwith interest @ 18% P.A from the date of accident till payment; Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and pains; Rs. 25,000/- as costs of the complaint, besides payment of the garage and estimation charges to opposite party No. 3 and in any case, he (complainant) is to pay them, he is entitled to recover them from opposite party No. 1 alongwith interest and costs.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :-<br /> A new vehicle Chevrolet Tavera was purchased by him from opposite party No. 3 vide invoice No. 000061 dated 9.7.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 6,80,491/-. Registration No. PB-03P-2020 has been allotted to it. This vehicle was comprehensively insured with opposite party no.1 through opposite parties No. 2 & 3 for a sum 5% less of invoice amount i.e. Rs. 6,46,466.45 (Insured's Declared Value)w.e.f the date of its delivery i.e. 9.7.2006. Insurance cover note No. PD-3038243 was issued by opposite party no. 1 through opposite party No. 3 (Authorized dealer of Chevrolet & ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited). Insurance policy was not issued. Comprehensive insurance is cashless insurance as the same was issued through opposite party No. 3. In case of loss, Insurance Company is supposed to pay the repair charges etc. directly to the authorised dealer. A sum of Rs. 25,182/- was received as insurance premium. On 6.7.2007, he (complainant), his wife, his friend Ashish Singla and Driver were going from Bathinda to Haridwar for pilgrimage. On the night intervening 6/7 July, 2007, this vehicle had met with an accident with one Tractor Trolley near Saharanpur. At that time, vehicle was being driven by Mr. Ramesh Kumar S/o Amar Chand. It was totally damaged. Intimation of the accident was given to opposite party no. 1 on 7.7.2007 and it had appointed Mr. Vikas Mohindroo as surveyor. At the asking of opposite party No. 1 and its surveyor, vehicle was shifted with opposite party No. 3 at its nearest workshop at Patiala Rajpura Road, Bahadurgarh with the help of truck of Satyam Transport Company, Saharanpur. It was unloaded from the truck at the workshop of opposite party No. 3 with the help of Crane of M/s. Sehgal Recovery Centre, Patiala. Satyam Transport Company charged Rs. 9,500/- and M/s. Sehgal Recovery Centre charged Rs. 1,500/- from him. In this manner, opposite party no. 1 took the custody of the vehicle from him as opposite party no. 3 is its representative and the insurance is cashless one. Vehicle is hypothecated with opposite party No. 2 which is the sister concern of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No. 2 had issued the cover note to opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No.3. Surveyor had obtained estimates from opposite party No. 3 directly although they were not required for settlement of the claim. Relevant documents were received from him. It is alleged that Surveyor had obtained his signatures on blank consent letters etc. with the assurance that the case of the vehicle is of total loss and the total amount as per Insured's Declared Value would be paid at the earliest. He withdraws all the blank forms, vouchers and papers. He alleges that Surveyor is a man of opposite party No. 1 and he is under its thumb and assesses the loss as per its dictates. Opposite party No. 3 issued copy of the letter dated 23.8.2007 to him raising demand of parking charges @ Rs. 250/- per day and 5% estimation charges. Estimates were obtained by the Surveyor directly from opposite party No. 3 without his knowledge. Letter dated 23.8.2007 of opposite party No. 3 was also sent to opposite party No.1. He (complainant) had approached the opposite parties many a times with the request to pay the claim as vehicle is hypothecated with opposite party No. 2 and bank is is charging heavy rate of interest. Registered letter was also sent to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on 18.8.2007, but to no effect. On the basis of the telephonic message dated 29.8.2007, he attended the office of opposite party No. 1 where no claim letter dated 21.8.2007 was handed over to him. He alleges that claim has been repudiated illegally, arbitrarily and on false and flimsy grounds. Due to non-payment of the claim amount, he has undergone mental agony and pains.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 1 filed its version taking legal objections that complaint has been filed simply to injure its reputation by way of concealing material facts; complicated questions of law and facts are involved; complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; it is not maintainable in the present form and it is false and frivolous. As per cover note, vehicle has been shown insured with it. Cover note is subject to confirmation from the policy issuing office. Policy No. 3001/50068573/00/000 was issued to the complainant. It denies that on 6.7.2007 complainant and his wife alongwith his friend Ashish Singla were going from Bathinda to Haridwar for pilgrimage and that vehicle was being driven by Ramesh Kumar. At the time of alleged accident, vehicle was being driven by one Jeet. Complainant has wrongly shown that it was being driven by Ramesh Kumar S/o Amar Chand. He has committed breach of utmost good faith which is the basis of contract of insurance. He has committed violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as he used to run the vehicle for commercial purpose i.e. as a taxi. On the cover note itself, it has been made clear that the vehicle cannot be used for commercial purpose and the person driving it must be having valid and effective driving licence. On the way, one Sandeep S/o Rajpal, R/o 343-L, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar had hired the vehicle from Jagadhari Bus Stand for going to Haridwar. Anil Jain was not in the vehicle. Vehicle had met with an accident. Information of the accident was given to the complainant by Sh. Sandeep by way of getting telephone number from the visiting card available in the vehicle. Sandeep had taken the injured driver namely Jeet to Civil Hospital, Saharanpur, where he was medically treated. It was not a case of total loss of the vehicle. Vehicle was repairable. Even otherwise, any claim is subject to assessment of loss after charging depreciation as per terms and conditions of the policy. Vehicle is of the manufacturing year of July, 2006, while the accident is alleged to have taken place on 6.7.2007 i.e. an year after the date of accident. Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs.2,71,183/- after applying depreciation as per terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Indian Motor Tariff. Intimation regarding the accident was received. It denies that Sh. Vikas Mohendroo was appointed as surveyor. Rather, Sh. R.K. Mangla was deputed as surveyor who had conducted the survey on 7.7.2007 and has submitted his report. Surveyor had recommended the investigation of the matter as to whether vehicle was being used for private or commercial purposes. Accordingly, Sh. A.P Singh was appointed as Investigator to investigate the various aspects of the accident and usage of the vehicle. He visited the spot of accident, Police Station Sarawawa, Civil Hospital Saharanpur and also contacted Sh. Sandeep of Yamuna Nagar. He paid visit to various Taxi Stands at Bathinda and also contacted complainant Anil Jain. As per investigation report dated 21.8.2007 vehicle was being driven by Mr. Jeet and not by Ramesh Kumar. Sandeep had boarded the vehicle on hire from Jagadhari for going to Haridwar. He has suffered statement before the Investigator. Investigator has also obtained the report regarding the injuries to driver Jeet and that has been signed by the E.M.O, District Hospital, Saharanpur. Complainant also suffered statement before the Investigator admitting that he was running the vehicle as Taxi for hire. Investigator has also procured the copy of the Visiting Card of the complainant wherein his vehicle has been shown alongwith his name and also the name of Jeet (Driver) alongwith their mobile numbers. All this makes the position crystal clear that the vehicle was being used as Taxi for hire. Claim has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 21.8.2007. They deny that the Surveyor had obtained the signatures of complainant on blank consent letter. <br /> 4. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply of the complaint assailing it on the grounds that it is not maintainable and it is based on false facts. There is no specific denial regarding the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from opposite party No. 3 on 9.7.2006 for a sum of Rs. 6,80,491/- and the fact that this vehicle was comprehensively insured with opposite party No. 1 through opposite parties No. 2 & 3 for an amount 5% less of invoice amount. According to it, vehicle was hypothecated with it and complainant has committed default in the repayment of the loan amount. Claim, if any, is liable to be paid to it. Remaining averments in the complaint have been denied mainly on the ground of want of knowledge.<br /> 5. Opposite party No. 3 was served for 19.9.2007. No-one came present on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte.<br /> 6. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Anil Jain complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.15), affidavits(Ex.C.13, Ex.C.16 & Ex.C.17) of S/Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Print Expert, Ashish Singla and Ramesh Kumar Driver respectively, photocopy of insurance cover note (Ex.C.2), photocopy of driving licence of Sh. Ramesh Kumar (Ex.C.3), photocopy of letter dated 18.8.2007(Ex.C.4), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.5), photocopy of registration certification (Ex.C.6), photocopy of No Claim letter dated 21.8.2007 (Ex.C.7), photocopy of proposal form (Ex.C.8), photocopy of claim form (Ex.C.9), photocopy of letter of opposite party No. 3 (Ex.C.10), photocopies of four pages of Job Estimates (Ex.C.11), Report of Anil Kumar Gupta dated 21.11.2007 (Ex.C.12) and receipt dated 30.11.2007 (Ex.C.14).<br /> 7. On behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1, Ex.R.32 & Ex.R.33) of S/Sh. Sat Prakash, Regional Manager (Legal) & authorised signatory, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Punjab, Panchkula, A.P Singh, Investigator and R.K. Mangla, Surveyor & Loss Assessor respectively, photocopy of Motor Survey Report (Ex.R.2), photocopies of three pages of Chart regarding loss assessment (Ex.R.3), photocopies of photographs (Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.25), photocopy of Investigation Report (Ex.R.26), photocopy of Medical Report of Jeet (Ex.R.27), photocopy of Visiting Card (Ex.R.28), photocopy of statement of complainant (Ex.R.29), photocopy of statement of Sandeep (Ex.R.30), photocopy of letter dated 21.8.2007 (Ex.R.31) and photocopy of Insurance Policy No. 3001/50068573 (Ex.R.34).<br /> 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Apart from this, we have gone through the record and considered the written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant and opposite party No.1 .<br /> 9. Some are the undisputed facts in this case. They are that vehicle Chevrolet Tavera was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 3 on 9.7.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 6,80,491/-. Registration No. PB-03P-2020 was allotted to it. Copy of the registration certificate is Ex.C.6. This vehicle was comprehensively insured with opposite party no. 1 for a sum of Rs. 6,46,466.45 (Insured's Declared Value) i.e. 5% less of invoice amount vide insurance cover note, copy of which is Ex.C.2 w.e.f. 9.7.2006. It was a cashless policy as this fact has not been specifically denied by opposite party No.1. This vehicle had met with an accident on the night intervening 6/7 July, 2007 with Tractor Trolley near Saharanpur. Intimation of the accident was given to opposite party No. 1 on 7.7.2007. Claim regarding damage to the vehicle has been repudiated by opposite party No. 1vide letter dated 21.8.2007 copies of which are Ex.C.7 and Ex.R.31 on the ground that this vehicle was being used for commercial purposes and there is breach of utmost good faith as name of the driver has been changed in place of the driver who was actually driving it.<br /> 10. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant are that insurance policy was not issued to the complainant as it was a cashless policy. Insurance company was supposed to give the repair charges directly to opposite party No. 3 in case of loss to this vehicle. It was a case of total loss of the vehicle. Custody of the vehicle was taken from the complainant as opposite party no. 3 is its representative. At the time of final survey, necessary documents were taken by the Surveyor of opposite party No.1 i.e. photocopy of registration certificate, driving licence, insurance cover note and signatures of the complainant were also obtained on blank papers, blank vouchers and blank consent letters on the assurance that it is a case of total loss and total amount as per Insured's Declared Value would be paid. He further submitted that opposite party No. 1 has fabricated the documents with malafide intention to harass the complainant. Proposal form was taken from the complainant before issuing the cover note. Opposite party No. 1 has produced wrong copy of the proposal form and that copy of the proposal form Ex.C.8 produced by opposite party No. 1 does not bear the signatures of the complainant. In the original proposal form signed by the complainant, name of the driver employed by him was mentioned as Ramesh Kumar. Opposite party No. 1 has wrongly and intentionally not produced the proposal form. In this regard, he drew our attention to the affidavits of the complainant which are Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.15, report (Ex.C.12) of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Print Expert and Forensic Consultant and his affidavit Ex.C.13. His next contention is that opposite party No. 1 had deputed Mr. Vikas Mohindroo surveyor as his name has been duly recorded in the letter of opposite party No.3, copy of which is Ex.C.10. Opposite party No. 1 has not intentionally and deliberately disclosed the name of the agent to whom it has paid the commission of the insurance. Even in Ex.R.3, the name of the surveyor has been recorded as Vikas Mohindroo. Insurance company with malafide intention has changed the surveyor without any reason or intimation to the complainant. Insurer is not free to appoint second surveyor to counter or contradict the report of first surveyor. For this, he drew our attention to the authorities National Insurance Company Vs. New Patiala Trading Company-I(2003)CPJ-33(NC), National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Vs. Roshni Devi-2002(1)RCR(Civil)-785, M/s. Jagdamba Industries Vs. National Insurance Company-III(1999)CPJ-131, M/s. Goel Trading Corporation Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Company and another-1998(1)CLT-181, National Processors Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.-I(1999)CPJ-73, Virendra Choudhary Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.-III(1996)CPJ-154, United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Sindhi Sweets & Ors.-III(2003)CPJ-24 and Universal Processors Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.-II(1998)CPJ-217.<br /> 11. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 vehementally argued that complainant is relying upon the insurance cover note and he has violated its terms and conditions as vehicle could not be used for commercial purpose. It was not a case of total loss of the vehicle. Surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,71,183/- after applying depreciation as per terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of Indian Motor Tariff. There is breach of trust i.e. utmost good faith on the part of the complainant as driver who was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident was Jeet and he has been changed as Ramesh Kumar. Moreover, vehicle was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Repudiation is legal and valid. No reliance can be placed on the report of Sh. Anil Gupta, Examiner of Questioned Documents and Finger Print Expert. Proposal form has not been changed by opposite party No.1. Surveyor appointed by opposite party No. 1 was Sh. R.K Mangla and not Mr. Vikas Mohindroo. The allegation of the complainant that documents have been fabricated, is unfounded and baseless. Sh. Mangla had recommended further investigation vide his report dated 12.7.2007, copy of which is Ex.R.2. Accordingly, matter was got investigated from Mr. A.P Singh, copy of whose investigation report is Ex.R.26.<br /> 12. We have considered the respective arguments. Copy of the insurance cover note Ex.C.2 reveals that insured's declared value is Rs. 6,46,466.45. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have brought on record copy of the insurance policy Ex.R.34. No-doubt, opposite party no. 1 has not led any cogent and convincing evidence according to which copy of the insurance policy was supplied to the complainant, yet complainant cannot wriggle out of the situation on this score as even in the cover note itself it has been made clear that the vehicle cannot be used for hire or reward i.e. for commercial purpose. Vehicle was purchased in July, 2006. Accident had taken place on the night intervening 6/7 July, 2007. Claim is always subject to depreciation. It does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that when insured's declared value was considered by taking 5% less of the invoice amount, depreciation cannot be taken into account while assessing the loss. Insured's declared value is the value which is mutually agreed by the insurer and the insured. Depreciation of the vehicle is considered while assessing the loss to the vehicle after it meets with the accident. Accordingly, depreciation as per the terms and conditions of the policy and Indian Motor Tariff i.e. 5% on metal parts and 50% on plastic parts is admissible. Now question is as to whether Mr. Vikas Mohindroo was appointed as surveyor by opposite party No. 1 for assessing the loss. Opposite party no. 1 is relying upon Ex.C.10 and Ex.R.3. They are the documents of opposite party No. 3. Ex.C.10 is the letter of opposite party no.3 which has been addressed to the complainant. It has been obtained by the complainant as customer. Mere fact that in this document Mr. Vikas Mohindroo has been recorded as surveyor would assume no significance as in the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Sat Parkash, Regional Manager (Legal) and authorised signatory of opposite party No. 1 has denied his appointment as surveyor. He has further stated that opposite party no. 1 had immediately deputed Sh. R.K Mangla as its surveyor and he had conducted survey on 7.7.2007 and had submitted his report. Ex.R.1 further gets support from Ex.R.2 which is the Motor Survey Report of Sh. R.K Mangla. A perusal of the same reveals that survey was allotted to him on 7.7.2007 and he had conducted the survey of the vehicle on the same day i.e. 7.7.2007 at the site of opposite party No.3. In Ex.R.3, Sh. Vikas Mohindroo has been recorded as CSM and not surveyor. The name of Mr. Vikas Mohindroo does not find mention against the column of surveyor. Simply on the basis of Ex.C.10, complainant cannot say that Vikas Mohindroo was appointed as surveyor and his report has been withheld and subsequently in his place Sh. R.K Mangla has been shown appointed as surveyor. An application was moved by the complainant for production of documents which were produced by opposite party no.1. Complainant did not raise objection that report of Sh. Vikas Mohindroo has not been produced. Application was disposed of on 16.11.2007. Thereafter, complainant led evidence. His affidavit dated 26.11.2007 has been tendered in evidence which is Ex.C.15. Even in Ex.C.15, there is no allegation that report of Mr. Vikas Mohindroo has been withheld. On the other hand,abundant evidence on the record proves that Sh. R.K. Mangla was appointed as surveyor and he has submitted his report dated 12.7.2007, copy of which is Ex.R.2 and the loss assessment sheet according to which he has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,71,183/- is Ex.R.3. Sh. R.K Mangla supports his report and the fact that he had conducted the survey of the vehicle of the complainant on 7.7.2007 and had assessed the loss at Rs. 2,71,183/- after applying depreciation and complying other provisions as per terms and conditions of the policy and Indian Motor Tariff. Complainant has submitted estimate Ex.C.11 regarding the loss to the vehicle. According to it, net payable amount is Rs. 5,78,727/-. Job estimate, copy of which is Ex.C.11, for repairs was sent to the complainant through letter, copy of which is Ex.C.10. Pleas of the complainant in paras No. 13 and 21 of the complaint are contradictory. In para no. 13, he has averred that surveyor had told that case of the vehicle is of total loss. In para No. 21, he has pleaded that surveyor is always under the thumb of the insurance company and he cannot annoy its officers. Ex.C.11 is not worth placing reliance as according to Ex.C.10 estimated value of the spare parts and labour rates have been taken on exterior position of the job. No depreciation has been taken into account. Salvage value has not been considered. No actual details for repairs have been produced. Complainant has not raised objection to the report of the surveyor of opposite party No. 1 and the assessment made by him. Report of the surveyor is a valuable document and cannot be thrown to the winds without any cogent and convincing reasons. It cannot be rejected unless there are valid and legal objections against it. For this, we are fortified from the authorities New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamal Nayan-2007(1)CLT-112, National Insurance Co Ltd. & others Vs. Aleyamma Verghese and others-2006(2)CLT-349 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jadhav Kirana Stores-2005(3)CLT-644. <br /> 13. As discussed above, Sh. R.K Mangla was not the second surveyor appointed by opposite party No.1. Submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that even if Sh. R.K Mangla was appointed as surveyor, another investigator could not be appointed, is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case. With utmost regard and humility to the above mentioned authorities relied upon by the complainant, they become distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of this case. As per these authorities, second surveyor cannot be appointed to counter or contradict report of the first surveyor. Evidence proves that Sh. R.K Mangla was appointed as surveyor by opposite party No.1. Loss to the vehicle in question was assessed by him to the tune of Rs. 2,71,183/-. Facts and circumstances do not warrant that it was a case of total loss of the vehicle. It is not a case where another surveyor has been appointed by opposite party no. 1 in order to get a contradictory view regarding the loss assessed by Sh. R.K. Mangla. Sh. Mangla in his report, copy of which is Ex.R.2, observed that usage of the vehicle by the insured should be confirmed and investigated for determining as to whether vehicle was for private or commercial use. It means that Sh. R.K. Mangla left the matter in the lurch about the use of the vehicle in his report and recommended that this matter be got investigated. Accordingly, opposite parties got the matter investigated regarding the use of the vehicle from Mr. A.P Singh, Investigator. In this manner, the report of the Investigator cannot in any way be said to have been obtained to counter or contradict the report of Sh. R.K. Mangla. The report of the Investigator is in continuation of the report of Sh. Mangla.<br /> 14. Next question is as to whether opposite party No. 1 has changed the proposal form submitted by the complainant and that proposal form copy of which is Ex.C.8 does not bear the signatures of the complainant. There is no trust worthy evidence of the complainant on this aspect of the matter. Complainant is relying upon the report Ex.C.12 of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta. As per it, he has compared the disputed signatures alleged to be of Anil Jain complainant appearing at mark Q1 on the photocopy of Motor Package Policy Proposal Form No. PD-3038243 with specimen signatures of Sh. Anil Jain appearing on the affidavit as specimen sheet dated 21.11.2007 at mark S1 to S9. His opinion is that the disputed signature mark Q1 is forged signature by impersonation and is not similar in their writing characteristics with the specimen signatures of Anil Jain mark S1 to S9 i.e disputed signature is not written by a person who has written specimen signatures mark S1 to S9. Affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta on this aspect of the matter is Ex.C.13. The report of this Handwriting & Finger Print Expert is not worth placing credence. He has not compared the original signature on the Motor Package Policy Proposal Form No. PD-3038243. The signature which he states that he has compared is a photocopy of the signatures on this Forum. Complainant did not seek permission of this Forum for giving specimen signatures on his affidavit dated 21.11.2007 nor specimen signatures were given by him in the presence of this Forum or in the presence of opposite parties no. 1 & 2 or their counsel. There are several other signatures of the complainant on some other documents in this file. Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta did not deem it fit to compare them with the alleged disputed signature. It is well settled that an expert is remunerated witness and generally he cannot give opinion against his pay master. Learned counsel for opposite parties have brought to our notice copies of the judgments in case No. 380-2 of 14.10.92 decided on 16.9.96 titled as Balkar Singh Vs. Harmesh Singh & ors. delivered by Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, Civil Suit No. 40 dated 23.2.2000, R.T No. 63 dated 11.1.2000 titled as Murti Devi Vs. Tara Singh decided on 20.7.2002 by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda and Civil Appeal No. 244 of 16/20.9.1993 titled as Kulwinder Singh & Ors. Vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors. decided on 14.8.1997 by the learned District Judge, Faridkot in which opinions of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Print Expert have been disbelieved. In the order dated 16.9.96 passed by Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, this so called expert has been condemned. From another angle as well, the report of Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta cannot be relied upon. Complainant does not deny his signatures on Ex.R.29. When the signatures on Ex.R.29 and on the complaint are taken into consideration for comparison with his signatures on the affidavit dated 21.11.2007 considered by Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, no other conclusion can be arrived at than the one that complainant is in the habit of disguising his signatures. Signatures on his affidavit dated 21.11.2007 do not tally at all with the signatures on Ex.R.29 and on the complaint as is evident to the naked eyes. Hence, conclusion is that complainant is not coming with clean hands. He has made vain attempt to prove that proposal form has been changed, although there is no solid evidence to establish it. No reliance can be placed on the opinion of such an expert who has been disbelieved by the courts time and again.<br /> 15. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that it is not a case where accident has taken place on account of the fact that excess passengers were siting in the vehicle and as such, claim could not be repudiated. To support it, reliance has been placed on the authorities United India Insurance Limited Vs. Surjit Singh ASAI-III(1999)CPJ-79 (NC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandrappa Veerapa Karadagi-1986-2002 Consumer 5637 (NS). This argument cuts no ice. Opposite party No. 1 has not repudiated the claim on the ground that accident in this case had taken place on account of the fact that more passengers were sitting in the vehicle. Repudiation is on the grounds that complainant was using his vehicle Chevrolet Tavera for commercial purposes and there is breach of utmost good faith on his part.<br /> 16. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the complainant argued that complainant was not using the car in violation of the terms and conditions of the cover note. Entire story of opposite party No. 1 that Jeet was driving this vehicle of the complainant is not worth placing credence. Infact Ramesh Kumar was the driver with the vehicle. Complainant, his wife and Ashish Singla were also travelling with him. No person on the way to Haridwar was made to sit in this vehicle on hire. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.15 of the complainant, Ex.C.16 of Sh. Ashish Singla, Ex.C.3 copy of the licence of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Ex.C.17 affidavit dated 26.11.2007 and Ex.C.9 photocopy of the claim form in which alleged Ramesh Kumar has been shown as driver at the time of accident. He further argued that even if it is taken for arguments sake that vehicle of the complainant was being used on hire by allowing Sandeep to travel in it from Jagadhari, even then the claim of the complainant can be treated as non standard. For this, reliance is placed on the authorities United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalavathy-II(2007)CPJ-308, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Krishna Bai-II(2007)CPJ-146(NC) and Asha Kiran Makhija Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.-III(2005)CPJ-40.<br /> 17. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that there is clear-cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the cover note in this case and the claim of the complainant cannot be treated as non-standard in the facts and circumstances of this case.<br /> 18. After screening the evidence on the record and taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant do not carry conviction. As discussed above, cover note, copy of which is Ex.C.2, itself shows that the vehicle of the complainant could not be used for commercial purposes i.e. for hire or award. Ample evidence has come on the file on the basis of which principle of res-ipsa liquitor applies. Things speak for themselves that vehicle of the complainant was being used as taxi i.e. for commercial purposes and that driver at the time of accident was Jeet and not Ramesh Kumar. Ex.C.9 is the claim form submitted by the complainant for receiving the claim. It has been stated in it that the driver had suffered injuries. If Ramesh Kumar was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and he had injuries on his person, medical record could be produced by the complainant. Evidence to this effect is lacking. Ex.R.27 is the copy of the medical report issued by the Emergency Medical Officer regarding injuries to Jeet i.e. the actual driver of the vehicle of the complainant. He was brought by Sandeep of Yamuna Nagar. Doctor found injuries on his person which have been recorded in Ex.R.27. Sh. A.P Singh has recorded the statement of Sandeep according to which he was waiting for the Bus near Bus Stand, Jagadhari in order to go towards Haridwar. In the meanwhile Tavera vehicle No PB-03P-2020 was stopped near the Bus Stand. There were 2/3 passengers in it. Driver of the vehicle had told him that one seat was available in the vehicle and it was going towards Haridwar. He had boarded this vehicle after negotiations on hire charges. When it reached near Sarasawa, this vehicle had met with an accident with the Tractor Trolley and driver of this vehicle namely Jeet had received injuries. This vehicle was also damaged. Sandeep has further stated in his statement before the Investigator that he had taken the injured driver to Civil Hospital, Saharanpur with the help of nearby persons and was got admitted. There was Visiting Card available in the vehicle and owner was informed on available phone number on the card. During the course of investigation of the case by Mr. A.P Singh, Investigator, statement of the complainant was recorded, copy of which is Ex.R.29. Contention of the complainant that Ex.R.29 is a fabricated document is unfounded and baseless. Its body writing and the signatures of the complainant underneath it do not show that body writing is subsequent to the appending of the signatures. Complainant has admitted in so many words in his statement before the Investigator that he is the owner of vehicle No. PB-03P-2020. He himself is Cloth Merchant. He is using this Tavera vehicle on hire. It means that he has admitted the use of his vehicle for commercial purpose before the Investigator. He has not denied his signatures on this statement. Ex.R.28 is the photocopy of the Visiting Card on which the name of the complainant and driver Jeet have been recorded. Not to speak of this, even their mobile numbers have been given on it. Complainant could prove on the basis of the record that mobile No. 94171-65111 mentioned on the Visiting Card recovered from the vehicle does not belong to him or that mobile No. 93563-80524 is not of Jeet. There is not an iota of evidence that Sandeep and Emergency Medical Officer Civil Hospital Saharanpur have enmity with the complainant. Complainant alleges that there was a total loss of his vehicle in the accident. He did not deem it fit to report the matter to the Police for getting the D.D.R or F.I.R recorded. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that this has been done deliberately. Had the matter been reported to the police, the truth would have come to the surface which could have been unfavourable to him. Another circumstance which goes in favour of the repudiation of the claim is that as per Ex.C.11 this vehicle had run 54670 Kms as on 7.7.2007 within one year i.e. about 150 Kms daily. A perusal of the report of Sh. A.P Singh, Investigator, copy of which is Ex.R.26, reveals that he has made it after thorough investigation from the spot, Police Station Sarasawa, verification of hospital record of Saharanpur, detailed inquiries from different Taxi Stands at Bathinda as well as personal visit and discussion with the insured and further statement was given by passenger Sandeep Kumar. He has concluded that this vehicle was being used as Taxi on hire which is violation of the policy conditions and that complainant has concealed the important facts and has changed the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Ex.R.26 is supported with the affidavit Ex.R.32 of Sh. A.P Singh. On the basis of the evidence, we conclude that complainant has concealed material facts and has changed the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He was using his vehicle as Taxi as he himself is a Cloth Merchant. This is against the terms and conditions of the insurance cover note. Obligation of good faith applies to insurer as well as insured equally as has been held by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. M.K.J Corporation-1997(1)SLJ-654. When a party suppresses material facts from the court, he does not deserve relief. For this reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of V.P Kapoor and others Vs. Raj Chopra and others-1999(1)CLT-436. Accordingly, repudiation of the claim made by opposite party No. 1 on the grounds mentioned in the repudiation letter, is justified. <br /> 19. Now question arises as to whether complainant is entitled to get his claim settled on non-standard basis. The reply to our minds is in the negative. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the complainant on this aspect of the matter, complainant cannot derive any benefit from them in view of the authority New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Nasib Singh, decided on 26.10.2004 by the Hon'ble National Commission in revision petition from the order dated 28.7.2004 of Hon'ble U.T Commission, Chandigarh passed in appeal no. 286 of 2004. It was held by the Hon'ble National Commission that there is a difference between regular use of a vehicle as Taxi and on a particular date for some violation by the driver. If the vehicle is used as regular Taxi in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, then registered owner is not entitled to compensation by treating it as sub-standard claim. In the case in hand, as per admission of the complainant, he is working as Cloth Merchant and his vehicle was being used on hire i.e. as Taxi for commercial purposes. In this view of the matter, we also get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Suresh Babu & Anr.-I(2007)CPJ-23(NC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Singh-II(2007)CPJ-11 which have been relied upon by the complainant himself in the written arguments. Accordingly, complainant is not entitled to get his case settled as non-standard claim. <br /> 20. In view of our foregoing discussion, no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 is proved. Complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to<br /> the parties free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 8.2.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br />