Per Justice Mr. S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President :
Heard both sides.
This appeal is directed as against the order dated 13.5.2010 passed in consumer complaint No. 323/2008 by Nasik District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nasik. By this order, the appellant Ifco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. is directed to pay the amount of `6,88,459/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 1.11.2009 till realization of the amount. Further, for mental agony, compensation of `15,000/- and costs of `500/- were also awarded.
The vehicle No. MH-15CD-7279 is owned by the respondent and it was purchased on 6.6.2009 and was insured with the appellant for a period from 6.6.2009 to 5.6.2010. Said vehicle met with an accident on 5.8.2009 when it was being driven by a driver Mr. Ramnath Shankar Khalate. Taking into consideration the material produced on record in respect of the repair of the said vehicle, claim was partly allowed,
The main grievance of the appellant before the Commission is that at the relevant time, the vehicle was not being driven by Mr. Ramnath Shankar Khalate but it was driven by Mr. Sagar A. Borgude, nephew of the complainant. However, on perusal of the First Information Report which is immediately lodged, we find that the name of Mr. Ramnath Shankar Khalate is reflected as a driver. In the proposal form and documents which are submitted to the Insurance Company, the complainant has reported that Mr. Ramnath Shankar Khalate was driving the vehicle. It appears that while the claim was under consideration, apart from the surveyor, an investigator was appointed by the Insurance Company. The fact finders were appointed and they have reported that the vehicle was being driven by the nephew of the complainant. District Forum found that the documents in respect of report of the investigator were not presented properly ( section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Act for brevity). The Insurance Law provided for appointment of assessor or surveyor but does not permit any investigation. If with surveyor’s report the Insurance Company is not satisfied, Insurance Company cannot appoint second surveyor but he has to inform to the earlier surveyor the difficulties in accepting the survey report and ask him to re-survey and look into the matter. Authenticity of the investigator’s report could be questioned on this count. No reason to accept such private investigation against the investigation/accident enquiry report by the police reflected from the charge-sheet presented before the Magistrate. Thus, the submission of the appellant that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was driven by Mr. Sagar A. Borgude who had no valid and legal driving license, cannot be accepted since the Insurance Company failed to substantiate the same.
For the reasons stated above, we find that appeal devoid of any substance. Holding accordingly, we pass the following order :
O R D E R
Appeal stands dismissed. In the given circumstances, both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced dated 21st September 2011.
