Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/2102

RAJESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI GIC. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MS.SHIVALI S. PARIHAR

27 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2102 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 14.09.2017 passed in C.C.No.89/2016 by District Commission, Ratlam)

 

RAJESH S/O ISHWARLAL PATIDAR.                                                              …          APPELLANT

 

           Versus

                 

S.B.I. GENERAL INSUANCE CO.LTD & ANOTHER.                                        …         RESPONDENTS.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI               :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY       :      MEMBER

 

 

                                      O R D E R

 

27.12.2023

 

            Ms. Shivali Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant.

            Shri Ravindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents. 

           

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.89/2016, whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed by the District Commission holding that the opposite parites-insurance company have not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

2.                Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the complainant’s vehicle Tavera Car bearing registration number MP-43 MB-0003 was insured with the opposite party no.2-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 06.12.2015 to 05.12.2016. It is submitted that during the insurance cover on

-2-

01.03.2016 some unknown truck dashed the subject vehicle due to which the vehicle overturned and got damaged of which intimation was given to the insurance company.  The insurance company conducted spot and final survey. He argued that the surveyor appointed in the matter assessed Rs.4,76,000/- on total loss basis after deducting salvage value of Rs.50,000/- but the insurance company denied the claim on false grounds. He argued that the District Commission has further committed grave error in dismissing the complaint.  He therefore prays that the impugned deserves to be set-aside and the appeal be allowed.

4.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/resopondents-insurance company argued that the complainant lodged FIR after seven days on 08.03.2016 whereas the accident took place on 01.03.2016. In the FIR, the complainant has mentioned the name of driver as Nageshwar Rathore whereas on investigation it was found that one Ravi Rathore was driving the vehicle who was under intoxication of liquor and was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. In the claim form also the complainant has mentioned the name of driver as Ravi Rathore. The driving license of the driver was also not produced. He argued that since there was violation of policy conditions 2(c) therefore the claim was denied and while doing so the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service. He argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

5.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we find that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle met with an

-3-

accident on 01.03.2016 and the FIR (at page 36) was lodged on 08.03.2016 i.e. after a period of 7 days.   D-2 is copy of claim form filed by the insurance company wherein the complainant has mentioned the name of driver as Nageshwar Rathore. D-3 is investigation report filed by the insurance company wherein it is mentioned that Nageshwar Rathore in his statement given to the investigator has admitted that Ravi Rathore was driving the vehicle.  D-4 is the statement of Nageshwar Rathore.

6.                From the document at page 68 which is OPD ticket of Nageshwar Rathore of Government Hospital, Ratlam dated 01.03.2016 (04.39am) wherein it is mentioned foul smell of alcohol as also in MLC (at page 69) of Ravi Rathore it is mentioned foul smell of alcohol. The accident took place at about 2.00am on 01.03.2016. This clearly goes to show that both Nageshwar Rathore and Ravi Rathore at the time of accident were under the influence of alcohol which is fundamental breach of policy condition as also violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.

7.                D-6 is repudiation letter dated 24.06.2016 wherein it is mentioned that as per claim form, the complainant has mentioned that Nageshwar Rathore was driving the vehicle whereas as per statement of Nageshwar Rathore to the Investigator Ravi Rathore was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. It is also mentioned that FIR was lodged on 08.03.2016 of the accident occurred on 01.03.2016.

8.                So far as the delayed FIR is concerned, it is well settled principle that in case of accident prompt intimation to the insurance company and in case of

-4-

theft prompt intimation to the police is must. In such circumstances, the repudiation on the ground of delayed FIR is not justified but since there is contradictory statement of the complainant that Nageshwar Rathore was driving the vehicle and Nageshwar Rathore in his statement to the Investigator has admitted that Ravi Rathore was driving the vehicle and on that basis the Investigator Anand Rathore in his investigation report (D-3) opined that at the time of accident, Ravi Rathore was driving the vehicle. This report was not controverted by the complainant. From the OPD ticket and MLC it is established that at the time of accident both Nageshwar Rathore and Ravi Rathore were found under the influence of alcohol, the repudiation of claim on that ground by the insurance company is found justified.

9.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the District Commission has after appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly opined that the opposite parties-insurance company have not committed any deficiency in service.

10.               Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

11.               In the result, the appeal fails is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.                        

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

                  Acting President                            Member