BASUDEV PANDA vs P.SHANKARA RAO

THE present appeal is by the complainant whose complaint petition has been dismissed by the District Forum, Balasore. Complainant''s case is his Maruti Car bearing No. OAC-7272 was insured with the Insurance Company in between the period from 7.12.1992 to 6.12.1993. THE same met with an accident on 21.3.1993 in between Baripada-Balasore around 8.30 p.m. when it dashed against a truck and the body sustained damage. THE complainant was driving the car and the other occupants were wife and daughter. During the same night, the complainant claims to have removed the car from the spot of accident to M/s. Kalinga Auto Syndicate at Industrial Estate, Balasore. THE same was removed by a mini truck belonging to one Basanta Kumar Sahu. He claimed to have spent Rs. 1,000/- towards the hire charges for carrying the car in the truck. On a claim made by the complainant the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim of the complainant was a fals one. In fact according to their case the car had earlier met with an accident some time during August, September, 1992 when there was no valid Insurance.

WE have heard Mr. K.N. Jena the learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. S.S. Rao the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the impugned order and materials on record. The District Forum disbelieved the case of the complainant giving reasons that the complainant failed to report the matter at the nearest Police Station at Nilagiri or even at Balasore which an ordinary prudent man would have done by reporting to the police. It also held that if the car was damaged to that extent which needed an extensive repair costing about more than Rs. 45,000/-. It is highly improbable that the occupant of the vehicle i.e. daughter and wife of the complainant did not sustain any injury at all. It also considered the affidavit of the officers of the Insurance Company such as Mr. Sekh Tahir the Branch Manager that the later refused to insure the car as he had known that some time in November, 1992 the car had met with an accident. It also accepted the affidavit of R.K. Mallick who was then working as Administrative Officer (Development) of the Insurance Company as on 21.3.1993 and stated that he never received any intimation from the complainant at the night of 21.3.1993 about the accident. The affidavit of B.K. Sahu to whom the complainant mentioned as a witness to prove his document for receiving Rs. 1,000/- towards the hire charges for removing the car from the place of accident indicates that he did not engage his truck OR-01-1156 to carry the car of the complainant on 21.3.1993 and that he never granted any money receipt. We have carefully gone through these affidavits. We find also in the record the letter of the said Basanta Kumar Sahu owner of the Mini Truck in question addressed to the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. a cofidential one which discloses as that he did not engage his truck for carrying the car from the spot of accident on 21.3.1993. But about 7 to 8 days before the Biswakarma Puja, 1992 he had removed the car in his truck from Ranital to the residence of the complainant at Angargadia within the Balasore town. He had received Rs. 350/-. But he had in good faith signed a blank paper to facilitate the complainant to lodge a claim for appropriate amount on the hire charges, as requested by the complainant.

On going through the documents we confirm that the District Forum has not committed any illegality by considering these materials against the complainant. To add to that we are also of the view that the car met with serious accident, the matter should have been intimated to the police. Information to the police in each and every case is taken to be the starting point to set the law in motion. Needless to point out that a matter not reported to the police at all at the right moment is a matter hardly to be accepted. Further, we could have also accepted the case of the complainant had there been any contemporaneous document to indicate that in fact he kept on record about the accident. Except his letter addressed to the Insurance Company we do not find any other contemporaneous document or records for which it could be reasonably ascertained the car in fact met with an accident. That apart even assuming for the sake of argument the fact so pleaded by the complainant are correct and should be believed, yet it does not necessarily mean that the Insurance Company would be attributed with any deficiency in service in not acceding to the claim of the complainant when they have in their possession the documents which have been mentioned above, which make them to bona fide believe that the fact of accident might not be true. There is no question of any laches or inaction on their part. Under such doubtful circumstances there would be a justification for the Insurance Company to repudiate the claim. However, we would observe that this would not prevent the complainant to maintain a claim before any other Forum if permissible under law. We accordingly, dismiss the appeal. No cost. The lower Court judgment is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.