ORDER

24.07.2017

Smt. Renu Sinha, Member (F).

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dt. 28.08.16, passed by the District Forum, Gopalganj, in Complaint Case No. 71/14, wherein the complaint stood dismissed for not succeeded to prove deficiency in service alleged against the O.P. Insurance Co.

2. The complaint case filed by the complainant in the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps, Oriental Insurance Co. for repudiation of the insurance claim for the damages suffered to the complainant on account of accident to his insured vehicle which occurred on 15.06.13 on way to Gopalganj, being driven by driver Md. Azad and the vehicle was insured with O.Ps Insurance Co. but repudiated the claim on the ground of violation of policy condition as the two name of the driver not same person as claimed by the complainant, even after submission of the clarification in this regard supported with an affidavit sworn by the driven Md. Azad and an affidavit certificate issued by Anchal Gopalganj Sadar in order to show that Md. Azad and Anwar Ansari are the same person son of Tafzul Ansari and name of Anwar Ansari was inherently written in FIR in place of Md. Azad, seeking relief of payment of insured amount against the damage of vehicle to the tune of Rs. 3,04,000/- with compensation on different counts and litigation cost and interest.

3. The O.Ps Insurance Co. contested the matter stating that the damaged car was driven by Anwar Ansari who put his signature on fard beyan but the complainant filed the driving license in the name of Md. Azad and the affidavit in order to show the both names are of same person did not satisfy the concerned Insurance authorities and disagreed with the reply of the complainant and refused to settle the claim on the grounds of different names of the driver, and accordingly repudiated on 10.06.14. The District Forum after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials produced in the case, having found the affidavit dt. 28.09.13 sworn by Md. Azad it has been shown therein Anwar Ansari is his alias name and likewise Anchal certificate dt. 04.09.15 prepared and obtained after sought explanation about two different names by Insurance Co. and on demand of Insurance Co. no injury or police report was made available to clarify the doubt and to ascertain over the father name and address of the driver by the complainant and the signature of Md. Azad on affidavit and the signature of Anwar Ansari upon fardbiyan not tally but totally different, who himself did not appear before the forum to clarify the difference in name, the District Forum come to conclusion that the driver Anwar Ansari who was driving the vehicle of the complainant at the time of accident was not having valid and effective driving license which is a violation of policy condition and the repudiation of the claim by Insurance Co. as valid and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

4. Being aggrieved with the order of the District Forum the appellant/complainant has come in appeal stating that the District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the complainant in support of the case with respect to the driver having two names is same person, was driving the vehicle at the material time of accident whose driving license was namely Md. Azad was with nick name as Anwar Ansari mentioned in the Fardbiyan. The above facts of the case was not considered properly and the District Forum passed the impugned order holding the appellant/complainant being not able to prove the case against the insurance Co.

5. Heard the counsel for the appellants as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. We have perused the materials available on the record along with impugned order in detail.

6. Admittedly, the vehicle of the appellants/complainants was insured with the respondent Insurance Co. under Private Car Package Policy, having IDV for sum of Rs. 3,04,000/-, and the said vehicle met with an accident on 15.06.13 within the valid period of the policy and due to accident vehicle damaged severely is not in dispute. Now the issue for the consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the insurance Co. on aforesaid grounds is valid or not. The documentary evidences which have been produced by the complainant by two documents as ext.13 filed in the District Forum in the name of Md. Azad showing therin Anwar Ansari is his alias name and the annexure c 1 the certificate issued by the Mukhiya under Gram panchayat, Manikpur, dt. 11.08.14 certifying that Md. Azad alias Anwar Ansari son of Tafuzal Ansari is the same person along with residential certificate dt. 04.09.15 mentioning the driver namely Md. Azad alias Anwar Ansari, S/o- Tafzul Ansri. These documents are supposed to be an important and reliable documents issued by the competent authority and is to be relied upon unless there is some cogent evidence for rejecting the same. Since the Insurance Co. have not challenged those documents as forged one, there is no reason for not believing the same. In view of above, we are of the opinion that Md. Azad and Anwar Ansari is two name of same person whose driving license was filed before the Insurance Co. is valid and effective Driving License at the time of accident and as such the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on ground of violation of policy condition by Insurance co. appears not justified. The respondents Insurance Co. is liable to pay the appellant/complainant compensation for the damage to insured vehicle due to accident under the policy.

7. The District Forum while passing the impugned order did not consider the above aspect of the case in correct perspective and passed the impugned order which not proper and sustainable. It is thus set aside.

8. Now as far as extent of quantum of compensation payable under the policy to the appellant is concerned, it appears from the record that the surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Co. after the incident of accident on 15.06.13, the final Survey Report dt. 17.07.13 was prepared by the Surveyor- Bisheshwar Nath Mallik which is available on record. We have gone through the surveyor report in detail. It appears from the final survey report that the survey report in detail. It appears from the final survey report that the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. after getting inspection of the vehicle minutely at Reeshav Automobile, the repair workshop, found the damages to the front side of vehicle and other unit severely and after getting repairing estimate from the workshop, assessed on total loss basis for sum of Rs. 2,28,500/- only after deduction of policy excess and wreck value from the assessed loss of Rs. 3,03,500/- only out of the total IDV of vehicle for Rs. 3,04,000/-. In examination of above we find the survey report dt. 17.07.13 appears quite reasonable based on proper analysis of the materials/documents.

9. It is well settled that the surveyor report is an important piece of evidence in settlement of claim and is to be relied upon unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidences that it could not be relied upon. Since the surveyor Report dt. 17.07.13 is not under challenge, the respondent Insurance Co. has no reason disown the very figure assessed by the surveyor in its Final Survey Report the liability of compensation payable to the appellant/complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,28,500/-. As such we are of the considered view that the respondent Insurance Co. is liable to indemnify the loss to the appellant/complainant as per the total basis assessed by Surveyor in its Survey Report dt. 17.07.13 with compensation.

10. Accordingly, the respondent Oriental Insurance Co. is directed to pay Rs. 2,28,500/- only to the appellant towards the damage to the insured vehicle due to accident along with lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- only on all counts within two months of receipt of this order. Failing which total awarded amount shall carry interest @10% p.a from the date of filing the complaint in District Forum till the date of final payment.

11. In result, the order of the District Forum is set aside. The appeal stands allowed as above.

     

     

                

   S.K. Sinha                                                                  Renu Sinha                                            

President                                                                  Member(F)                                           

Mukund