Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by the opponent/Insurance Company against the judgement and award passed by District Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint No.2015/2009 decided on 11/05/2011. While allowing the complaint partly, District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of `1,22,199.70 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 06/03/2009 till actual payment and also directed to pay `5,000/- towards mental harassment suffered by the complainant. As such, Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
The complainant owned a motor vehicle Truck No.MH-10-Z-855. He had taken insurance cover from the appellant/Insurance Company for the period 28/07/2008 to 28/07/2009. During this period, complainant’s truck met with an accident at Sangli-Islampur Road on 08/12/2008. In the said accident, cleaner of the truck Mr.Dashrath R. Bandgar was killed and driver of the truck Mr.Bajrang G. Chougule suffered some injuries. The accident was reported to the Police. Against the driver of the Tractor who was responsible for the accident, Police has registered an offence. Intimation of the accident was also given to the Insurance Company and the truck was repaired. Complainant had paid amount of `2,58,002/- as repair charges. He then lodged insurance claim with the Insurance Company. Insurance Company delayed in granting of claim for one or other grounds. They asked driving licence of the driver. Since the claim was not honoured or sanctioned, the complainant filed consumer complaint for claiming amount of `2,58,002/-. He also claimed `50,000/- towards deficiency in service and `10,000/- towards mental harassment and costs of proceeding.
3. Opponent filed written version and admitted that the complainant’s truck was insured with them and they denied that at the time of accident Mr.Bajrang Chougule was driving the vehicle. They also denied that complainant incurred expenses of `2,58,002/-. According to the opponent/Insurance Company they had appointed Investigator. On inquiry the Investigator found that deceased Dashrath Bandgar was driving the vehicle and he was not having driving licence and therefore, by sending repudiation letter dated 06/08/2009 they had disclaimed their liability rightly.
4. District Forum however, considering the documents and affidavits placed on record found that deceased Dashrath Bandgar was not driving the vehicle and driver was Mr.Bajrang Chougule and he sustained minor injuries, but the cleaner was killed in the accident. District Forum was of the view that on the basis of assumption and presumption, the Investigator had drawn conclusion that deceased Dashrath Bandgar was driving the vehicle without any driving licence. District Forum observed that in the Police F.I.R. name of the truck driver mentioned as Mr.Bajrang Chougule and it was mentioned that person who was sitting by the side of driver i.e. Dashrath Bandgar had expired. So, District Forum was of the view that the claim was erroneously repudiated and therefore, it allowed the complaint and directed payment of `1,22,199.70 with interest @ 9% p.a. This was so granted in terms of Survey Report. Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
5. We heard Mr.R.P. Bafna, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Nagesh Chavan, Advocate for the respondent.
6. In the claim form submitted to the Insurance Company, it was mentioned that driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was Mr.Bajarang G. Chougule and he was having valid driving licence. The cleaner of the truck sustained grave injuries and ultimately died in the said accident. So, the cleaner, one Mr.Dashrath Bandgar was not at all driving the vehicle. In the final Survey Report prepared by S.A. Kulkarni, Surveyor & Loss Assessor of Sangli, it has been mentioned that driver of the vehicle was Mr.Bajarang G. Chougule and he was having driving licence which was valid upto 15/03/2011 for driving L.MV. (NT) and Transport vehicle. From the Survey Report, it is clear that driver was Mr.Bajarang G. Chougule which fact was mentioned by the complainant in the claim form which was supported by Survey Report. Thus, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum fastening liability on the Insurance Company is appearing to be just and proper and said order does not call for any interference by this Commission sitting in appeal because the facts were rightly appreciated by the District Forum in its impugned order. There is nothing on record shown to us by Counsel for the appellant which would prompt us to take a different view than what has been taken by the District Forum by allowing this appeal. There is no substance in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 28th June 2012.
