PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.SAHI, (PRESIDENT) 1. The petitioner/complainant claimed indemnity under an Insurance Policy on the ground that his vehicle Toyota Qualis had met with an accident on 18.11.2003. For this, the complainant relied on the Police Daily Diary No.18 dated 18.11.2003, a copy whereof is Annexure –P-6 to the compilation. This narrated that the vehicle was being driven by Sunil Kumar, the Driver of the complainant, who while driving the vehicle on GT Road from Gharaunda to New Delhi was obstructed by the crossing of a blue bull/cow and in order to save a collusion, he applied brakes at the spur of the moment as a result whereof the vehicle met with an accident and damage was caused. 2. The Insurance Company on a claim being put forwarded appointed an Investigator Mr. R.N. Sharma, (Retd. Deputy Superintendent of Police), who submitted a report on 08.03.2004, whereafter, Insurance Company came to the conclusion that the claim was not admissible as it was found that the vehicle was being driven by one, Mr. Ram Niwas and the alleged incident of upturning of the vehicle seems to have taken place on 15.11.2003, which was also doubtful as further investigation into the matter revealed no evidence of the accident. Consequently, the claim was repudiated on the ground that no accident was established and there is no convincing evidence to support the same. 3. The complainant filed Complaint Case No.477 of 2005 that was dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal on 18.09.2007. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the complainant filed First Appeal No.2948 of 2007 before the State Commission that was also dismissed on 22.10.2012. 5. Assailing the aforesaid orders, the present Revision Petition has been filed contending that the petitioner has relied on Police Daily Diary Report dated 18.11.2003 that has been duly certified and issued by the concerned Police Station and which is an official information in terms of Section 155 of the earlier Criminal Procedure of Code. To the contrary, the Daily Diary Report dated 15.11.2003 relied by the Investigator does not bear any stamp of certification of the concerned Police Station and is not an official document. It is therefore, submitted that this contradiction which was sought to be introduced by the Insurance Company on the basis of uncertified documents could not have been taken as evidence for suspecting the accident. 6. It is further submitted that the accident had occurred, which fact cannot be disputed and consequently to deny the claim on such weak evidence is unsustainable and the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 7. The Insurance Company had appointed Surveyor M/s. V.P. Singhal & Co. who had certain queries from the complainant vide letter dated 29.04.2004 to which a reply was given by the complainant on 05.06.2004. The claim was thereafter repudiated vide letter dated 06.10.2004, which is extracted herein under:- “NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTIED Branch Office Dhanwant Building GT Road, Karnal-132001 Ref. No.420501/3103/6100439/2664 dated: 06/10/2004 “To, Sh. Kulwant Singh S/O Shisha Singh Near Girls Govt. School, Ward No.6, Gharaunda, District Karnal. Sir, Re: Reported accident to vehicle No.HR01J-9292 Toyota Qualis on 18.11.2003 Under policy No.420501/3103/6102751 This has reference to your intimation dated 24/11/2003 informed us about the above accident and claim from submitted by you duly filled in and signed related to above claim. We are to inform you that the above case was entrusted to an Investigator on our panel for fact finding thereof. On scrutiny of above documents submitted by you and investigation report the following have been observed:- i) As per claim form/ intimation, Sh. Sunil Kumar is reported to be shown on the wheels at the material time of accident and DDR No.18 dt. 18.11.2003 has been got registered by you with PS Murthal. As per column 7 of the claim form none has sustained injury out of above accident. ii) As per investigation report and DD No.6 dated 15.11.2003 lodged by Police officer on had met with an accident on 15.11.2003 and Sh. Ram Niwas was driving the Vehicle at material time of accident and he sustained injuries out of above accident who was firstly treated at hospital at Rai and later on he remained admitted in a Hospital at Panipat upto 17.11.2003. iii) As per statements recorded by out investigator, the vehicle was plying for hire or regard. In view of information/documents/facts/aspects narrated above, it has been brought out that you have violated terms and conditions of policy as follows:- (i) You had intentionally and dishonestly lodged a false DDR No.18 dated 18.11.2003 in respect of accident actually taken place on 15.11.2003. ii) You had fraudulently concealed the true facts by indulging in a cover-up exercise and putforth a false claim with the object to lay claim to damage caused to your car with the object to gain wrongfully. (iii)* Hence your above claim file is closed as No Claim by the competent authority and consigned to records. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sr. Branch Manger.” 8. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, came to the conclusion that the driver Mr. Sunil Kumar was neither produced nor his affidavit was filed. 9. It was further found that the vehicle was carrying passengers and therefore the vehicle was being plied for hire. Thus, this is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy and in order to secure the claim, correct facts had not been taken recourse to and the documents produced were not genuine regarding the description of the accident. 10. The order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal dated 18.09.2007 rejected the claim and was also affirmed by the State Commission. 11. From the facts as disclosed on record and discussed in the impugned order, it is evident that the vehicle had met with an accident according to both versions. However, the entry of documents and their procurement has been doubted. The Daily Diary Report relied on by the Investigator dated 15.11.2003 has not been supported by the concerned Police Station, which is evident from the report of Station House Officer, Murthal that has been filed on record pursuant to the order that was passed on 05.09.2013. The order of this Commission dated 05.09.2013 is extracted herein under:- “S.H.O. Murthal has failed to produce MLCs of the injured persons, namely, Sunil Kumar, Ram Niwas and Chandra Bhan. He states that he has already applied for copies of those MLCs. to Medical Superintendent, General hospital, Sonepat. He undertakes to produce those MLCs of the aforesaid persons within one week. He is directed to do the needful within a week. List on 13.09.2013.” 12. Pursuant to the said order, the Station House Officer, Murthal tendered the report before this Commission, which is on record along with the documents through Daily Diary Report dated 11.09.2013. The same narrates that the Daily Diary dated 15.11.2003 could not be verified according to the records. There was no further corroborating material to establish the sending of any injured persons to the primary hospital between 15.11.2003 and 18.11.2003. 13. The finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, for disbelieving the Daily Diary Reports, therefore, seems to be not in accordance with the records that was got verified by this Commission under the order referred to herein above. Consequently, the documents as alleged dated 15.11.2003 as reported by the Investigator does not seem to inspire confidence in order to support the findings recorded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. 14. However, at the same time, no affidavit of Sunil Kumar who is said to have been driving the vehicle as alleged was filed and hence the vehicle being driven by Sunil Kumar also could not be confirmed as evidence, that was doubtful, but the fact remains that the Investigator had found that the vehicle was carrying passengers on hire. This has been made the basis for repudiating the claim. This fact of the vehicle carrying passengers for hire does not seem to have been questioned. 15. The affidavit of the Investigator Mr. R.N. Sharma has been filed to support his affidavit dated 08.03.2004. The affidavit of the surveyor M/s. V.P. Singhal & Co. has also been filed which indicates that the vehicle had been damaged and estimates were also given. 16. From the above mentioned facts, it is apparent that the Police Diary Report dated 15.11.2003 had become questionable after this Commission passed order on 05.09.2013, in pursuance whereof Station House Officer tendered his report as already referred to above. Thus, to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the status of the police reports on the basis whereof the claim was contested indicates a serious disputed question of fact about the date of the incident itself. 17. The main foundation of repudiation is the incorrect date of accident. As noted above, this Commission on 05.09.2013 had called upon the Station House Officer to tender his report which has been placed on record. This evidence which has been collected pursuant to the orders of this Commission and has been filed through IA/2428 as additional documents vide a diary No.8049 dated 09.04.2013 therefore deserves to be considered for assessing the date of the accident. These documents are therefore found to be necessary for being analyzed to arrive at the correct conclusion regarding the date of the accident. On 13.09.2013, the Station House Officer had appeared and filed documents. On 22.07.2014, the following order was passed. “Dated:22.07.2014 ORDER Vide proceedings dated 11.04.2013 SHO Murthal, Sonepat was directed to produce the Daily Diary register maintained at the Police Station pertaining to November 2003 containing entries dated 15.11.2003 and 18.11.2003. He was also directed to produce photocopies of MLCs, if any, pertaining to the medical examination of the injured persons at Murthal Hospital. SHO Murthal instead of producing the relevant Daily Diary register has submitted a report that copy of Daily Diary dated 15.11.2003 relied upon by the insurance company is not a genuine document. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid report. SHO Murthal is, therefore, directed to appear on next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, notice be issued to Inspector Om Prakash, whose arrival entry is recorded in the copy of daily diary dated 15.11.2003 relied upon by the insurance company. Inspector Om Prakash shall file an affidavit whether or not the aforesaid entry was got recorded by him in the register on 15.11.2003. List on 12.01.2015.” 18. The report was ultimately submitted as recorded in the order dated 19.11.2018 which order is extracted hereinunder: “Dated:19.11.2018 ORDER A report has been received from PS. Murthal, Sonepat (Haryana). List the matter for final hearing on 10.07.2019. Meanwhile, parties may file short synopsis of their arguments along with citations not exceeding 2 to 3 pages each with cross references and pagination as per Court’s file with advance copy to each other at-least two weeks before the next date of hearing.” 19. In these circumstances, the issue with regard to the determination of the date of the accident on the basis of the material on record requires to be reassessed and we therefore are of the opinion that the matter requires a remand to the State Commission for assessing the same and also permit the parties to file appropriate affidavits along with any material in support thereof together with the material which has been brought on record before this Revision as mentioned above for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The order dated 22.10.2012 passed by the State Commission is therefore set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for decision afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove. | 
