Haryana

StateCommission

A/461/2015

NARESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ARUN LUTHRA

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    461 of 2015

Date of Institution:    21.05.2015

Date of Decision :     11.07.2016

 

Naresh Kumar s/o Sh. Ishar Singh, Resident of Village Dhand Road, Fatehpur, District Kaithal.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Regional Manager, Registered Office, Oriental House, Post Box No.7037, A-20127, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.

2.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.109-110-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

3.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Present:               Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri D.C. Kumar, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The unsuccessful complainant is in appeal against the order dated April 16^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed. 

2.      Naresh Kumar-complainant/appellant, got his truck No.HR-64-4038, insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/respondents, for Rs.11,70,000/- from May 20^th, 2012 to May 19^th, 2013, vide Insurance Policy Exhibit PJ.  It was alleged that on September 24^th, 2012 the truck overturned and fell in the ditches on the road side and was damaged. The complainant did not lodge any report with the Police. It was further alleged that the truck was got repaired from ‘Raj Agro AIDS’ Khanna, Punjab by paying Rs.1,93,997/-. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company deputed M/s Royal Associates, Investigator and Detective Agency to investigate the matter. The surveyor investigated the matter and submitted report Exhibit R-4. The Insurance Company vide letter dated March 17^th, 2013 (Exhibit R-6) repudiated the claim. The extract of the repudiation letter is as under:-

“As per facts mentioned in the motor claim form duly signed submitted by you/insured that on 24.09.2012 at about 9 AM the insured truck was coming from Una to Fatehpur by loading Stone (Bajri) and on the way suddenly another truck came in front of insured truck and to avoid the mishap the driver of the truck Mr. Dharam Pal turned his truck towards extreme to his left side down to road but the insured truck went out of control and unbalanced and toppled into the road side ditches and damaged.

On receipt of claim form the insurance company has deputed Royal Associates Investigator and Detective Agency to investigate the matter. The said investigator has submitted his report in our office with the findings:-

i)        Mr. Naresh Walia is resident of Village Fatehpur District Kaithal. He is actual registered owner and insured of the truck in question and Mr. Dharam Pal s/o Sh. Inder Singh R/o Barsana is working as driver on said truck. The said truck was mostly used for transportation of sand, Bajri and Core sand etc.

ii)       The insured and driver Dharam Pal were not remember the date of accident. so they both claimed in their statement recorded by investigator that in the last year Sept. the truck met with an accident but cause of accident claimed by them is different.

iii)      As per statement of insured bajri being carried in truck from Una and on the way truck over turned out as per statement of driver when bajri was loaded in the truck its one side tyre went down in sand and truck over turned on one side. At that time bajri was being loaded in truck by JCB and jack and body of truck damaged when it was lifted with JCB.

iv)      As no one was on fault for the said accident. No other vehicle was involved in said accident. No one sustained injuries in said accident. No FIR/DDR was lodged for said accident.”

3.      Aggrieved of the repudiation of his claim, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.      The best piece of evidence is the report of the surveyor. The surveyor in his report Exhibit R-4 opined as under:-

                                                          “OPINION

On the basis of above said findings and documentary evidence, we are of the opinion that insured as well as driver is not remembered about actual date of accident. Insured claiming that truck met with accident on the way from Una to Pundri (near Una), while saving accident with opposite coming truck. Truck overturned on one side (as one side tyre went in sand), when bajri was being loaded in the truck. Driver further claimed that jack and body of truck damaged when it was being lifted by JCB. So it seems from statement of driver that body and jack of loss and date of loss which is breach of policy terms and conditions of the company. Insured may consider admissibility keeping in view of above said findings. This report is issued without prejudice.”

5.      From the report (Exhibit R-4) of the surveyor, no accident had occurred, as alleged. The complainant did not lodge any report with the Police which could establish the fact that the truck met with accident. It creates doubt on the veracity of the story cooked up by the complainant. The complainant and the driver of the truck also could not state the exact date of accident when they were examined by the investigator. Both of them had given different version of the occurrence. The complainant stated that the truck met with accident while coming back from Una to Fatehpur, whereas the driver stated that the truck met with the accident while stones were being loaded in the truck.

6.      The report (Exhibit R-4) of the surveyor is an important document. It has significant evidentiary value, unless it is proved otherwise. Since the evidence led by the complainant to prove the accident is not worth credence, the report of the surveyor has to be accepted and it is accepted.

7.      In view of what has been stated above, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  No case for interference is made out.

8.      Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Announced 11.07.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL