Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 23-07-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Murshidabad in C.C. No. 112/2012 whereof the complaint has been allowed.

Brief facts of the complaint case are that his insured vehicle bearing registration no. WB-58R/9289 met an accident on 11-04-2012.  Due FIR in this regard was lodged on the very same day and the OP Insurer given due intimation in this regard.  The matter was duly investigated and surveyed by the OPs.  After repairing the vehicle, due payment was made to the service centre and an insurance claim lodged with the OP Insurer, but they did not settle his claim.  Hence, the complaint.

The OP contested the case by filing a WV.  It is the case of the OP Insurer that the Surveyor though assessed the loss at Rs. 82,904/-, after thorough scrutiny of relevant documents the instant claim of the Complainant was repudiated by it vide letter dated 27-06-2012.  The claim of the Complainant was repudiated because of the fact that although the Complainant obtained a Private Car Package Policy, it was used for carrying passengers for ‘hire and reward’ purpose at the material point of time which was a gross violation of policy condition pertaining to ‘limitations as to use’. 

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record carefully.

The instant claim of the Respondent was repudiated allegedly on account of violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, as also that of policy terms and conditions.  It is alleged that notwithstanding the vehicle was insured under the ‘Private Car package Policy, at the material time of accident, the insured vehicle was insured for ‘hire & reward’ purpose.  To buttress such point, the Appellants filed photocopies of two letters purported to have been written by M/s Sk. Mostafa and Makarul, the so called hirer of the insured vehicle.  In both the letters, besides confirming the fact that the insured vehicle was hired by them, it was further stated that the deceased persons happened to be their close relatives.

On the other hand, it appears from the copy of the FIR that the Respondent made similar claim in respect of the deceased persons, i.e., both of them were his near-relatives. 

Significantly, the purported letters of Sk. Mostafa and Makarul have not been proven following due process of law.  Since the Appellants repudiated the instant claim of the Respondent banking on the purported letter, they were legally duty-bound to prove the authenticity of the said letters beyond all reasonable stretch of doubt as per laid down procedure.  However, neither the said letters were placed under affidavit from the concerned persons nor the Investigator, who stated to have procured the said documents, adduced any evidence.  It is indeed surprising that the Appellants did not appreciate the fact that simple photocopy of a document does not construe tangible proof in the eye of law. It seems, the Ld. District Forum further observed that the Appellants also could not produce any rent receipt to show that the insured vehicle was indeed given for ‘hire & reward’ purpose.  Accordingly, no reliance can be placed on the document being produced by the Appellants in support of their contention.

Accordingly, we do not find any jurisdictional error with the decision of the Ld. District Forum to allow the case.  Having said that, it is also a fact that while deciding the quantum of compensation, the Ld. District Forum has shown too much generosity.  It appears that the Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 82,904/-.  However, without appreciating the rationale put forth by the Surveyor to quantify the loss at Rs. 82,904/-, the Ld. District Forum directed the Appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,418/-.  This cannot be appreciated.  The Survey Report is an important piece of document which cannot be discarded at will.  Keeping in mind the fact that the Respondent could not pick any hole with the survey report or produced any counter-report from another expert to nullify the report of the Surveyor, we deem it fit and proper to restrict the liability of the Appellants to the value assessed by the Surveyor.  

The Appeal, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That A/1358/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest in part.  The impugned order is modified as under:

Appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 82,904/- as insurance benefit to the Respondent within 45 days hence, i.d., interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the aforesaid sum for the entire period of default. Other relief, as awarded by the Ld. District Forum, are hereby struck off.