Complainant filed this complaint against Opposite Party for seeking various relief as per prayer clause.

 

1                    Complainant’s case in short is that he is owner of Toyato Qualish Motor Car bearing Registration No. MH-31/AG-6305 and the vehicle was insured with the O.P. under compressive policy for the period from  23/07/2004 to 22/07/2005 vide policy No.163801/31/05/5666.

 

2                    On date 04/06/2005 the above said vehicle was on the way from Goregaon to Gondia carrying the friends of the complainant , At about 12.30 in the night one truck bearing Registration No. MH-35/1912 coming from opposite side dashed the Toyata Qualish Car of the complainant and the vehicle of the complainant was completely damaged and six persons including the driver of the said vehicle were died at the spot.

3                     Complainant lodged the claim of Rs. 11,99,907/- to the O.P. on 20/09/2005 and also submitted the estimate of repairing of the vehicle was known by two names Mahipalsingh Rajput and as well as Harpalsingh Parihar. The postmortem report and police panchnama also contains the name of Harplsingh. The O.P. just harass the complainant used to ask the quarry only to defeat the claim of the complainant . At last complainant was directed by the O.P. to submit affidavit by the heirs of the deceased for clarification about two names of the deceased driver. But due to some unavoidable circumstances the complainant failed to submit the affidavit of legal heirs of the said deceased driver. The complainant submitted that there is no need of affidavit of the legal heris of the deceased driver in respect of the clarification for two names. The O.P. has closed the file of the complainant on false ground that the affidavit of the legal heirs of the deceased driver is not submitted . The complainant filed this complaint for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- as claim of accidental vehicle, Rs.75000/- towards interest, Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical harassment which comes to an total amount of Rs.3,35,000/- and Rs.5000/- towards the cost of this case and further interest @ 15% extra from the date of complaint till the payment . (Ex.1).

4                    In response to notice U/s. 13 of C.P.Act. 1986 O.P. appeared and filed his reply (Ex.7). The O.P. denied all allegations and submitted that complainant has not complied all formalities required by the O.P. and accepted that he has issued some letters to the complainant asking some inquiries and also denied that the complainant is prompt in giving reply. The complainant has not produced the affidavit of the legal heirs of the deceased driver. The O.P. submitted that there was need of the clarification regarding two names of the deceased driver. The O.P. denied about the claims of prayer clause.

5                    The O.P. further submitted that the complainant has insured his vehicle for the value of Rs.2,50,000/- and premium was also paid for the value of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. the total value of the vehicle was Rs.2,50,000/- . The O.p. submitted that on going through the claim form and in the driving license the name of the driver was mentioned as Mahipalsingh Ganeshsingh Rajput and in postmortem report and investigation panchnama the name of the driver   is mentioned as Harpalsingh Ganeshsingh Parihar , Hence there was difference in the name of the driver so complainant was intimated vide letter dated 11/05/2006 to clarify and submit the necessary evidence and complainant failed to clarify the above fact.

 

The O.P. further submitted that the complainant is at fault and responsible for this situation hence the O.p. can not be held responsible for any deficiency in service. So this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

6          On verifying all records and going through all the documents thoroughly and hearing argument of both sides the only point arose for our consideration whether the complainant is entitled for any relief and our finding is “As per final order” due to following reasons.

7          The complainant insured his vehicle for own damages for Rs.2,50,000/- as the cost of the vehicle i.e. total loss and third party damages also included Xerox copy of policy submitted by O.P. (Doc.No.1). The Complainant failed to submit the copy of policy. Complainant paid premium Rs.10404/-against above policy for the period from 23.07.2004 from 15.00 P.M. to 22/07/2005 up to midnight. The accident of the vehicle took place on 04-06-2005 which falls within the insured period of the effective policy No.163801/31/05/5066 of the accidental vehicle. In this accident 6 persons were died on the spot including the driver. An offence bearing No.50/05 was also registered at the police station Goregaon U/S.337, 338, 304 (a) of I.P.C. read with 135, 177 of Motor Vehicle Act.

8          The complainant filed claim of own damages to the O.P. The complainant submitted that the estimated cost of the repairs is Rs.11,99,907/- and this amount was unaccepted when the total cost of the vehicle was insured for Rs.2,50,000/- only. The O.P. submitted that the model of the vehicle was of year 2000 and the accident took place in the year 2005. So it cannot be accepted (Doc.No.2)

9          The main dispute arise regarding the driving license of the driver. The complainant submitted the zerox copy of the driving license with name of Mahipalsingh Ganeshsingh Parihar (Doc.No.2) and the postmortem report contains the name of the deceased driver as Harpalsingh S/o. Ganeshsingh Rajput. For clarification of this difference in name the O.P. sent 4 letters dated 30-06-06, 04-08-06, 27-10-06 and 19-01-07 to the complainant to give his explanation regarding the difference in name of the driver but the complainant failed to comply the same , So the O.P. has closed the file as “No Claim” because burden of proof lying on complainant.

 

10        The driver of the said vehicle died on the spot, so no one told about his real name. Perhaps at the time of F.I.R. it was informed that the name of the driver was Harpalsingh S/o. Ganeshsingh Rajput . The complainant has submitted a copy of judgment from the labour court and there was claim of Rs.3,37,968/- with interest @12% was allowed by the Commissioner under workman’s compensation Act., App No. F.W.C.A.No.2 of 2005  and the claim of widow of deceased Mahipalsingh @ Harpalsingh and Harpalsingh was same person and his surname was Parihar and the caste  was Rajput. So the claim should be admitted by the O.P. though complainant failed to submit affidavit of heirs of the deceased driver. Apart from this the news paper cutting was also contains the name of the deceased driver as Mahipalsingh (Lokmat Samachar) (Doc.No.5) . hence our finding is that the Mahipalsingh Parihar and Harpalsingh Parihar were the names of same deceased driver. As such we have no hasitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed by him.

 

11                That , the complainant has submitted on authority reported in S.C. & National Commission Law Cases (1996-2005) page 763

Where it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a reasonable time of 2 months would be justified period for insurance company to take decision from the date of submission of report of surveyors report, whether the claim required to be settled or rejected (Para 8).

 

That the aforesaid citation is not of any help to the case of the complainant . As the fact of the said case are different from the case in hand. As in this case O.P. Insurance Company has repudiated the claim on the ground  of non furnishing of details required by it from the complainant and there is no surveyor’s report because the case in hand is for total loss.

 

 

12                The complainant submitted quotation for cost of salvage value of Rs.92000/- and salvage was lying with complainant. As per the policy condition Rs.1000/- excess was not allowed. Thus complainant is entitled for claim of Rs.1,57,000/- after deducting the salvage value of Rs.92000/- and excess amount of Rs.1000/- from the insured amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and the complainant was not entitled for interest as the complainant was responsible for delay in settling the claim by not replying to the letters sent by the O.P. and failed to produce necessary document as proof of the name of the deceased driver.

 

Hence we pass the following order :-

 

 

1                    The Complaint is partly allowed.

2                    The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.1,57,000/- as claim of the damage of the accidental vehicle of the complainant within one month from the date of this order otherwise the O.P. will be liable to pay interest @12% per annum till realization.

3                    The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant as the cost of this complaint.