Gurbhed Singh vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

THIS appeal has arisen out of the Order dated 20th December, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant and directing the complainant to have recourse to Civil Court, if he so desired. The controversy involved in this appeal has arisen from the facts which are summarised as below.

SHRI Gurbhed Singh, complainant was the owner of truck bearing registration No. PB - 11 -B -2979. It was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company on 20th January, 1992 for a sum of Rs. 4.00 lakhs. The vehicle met with an accident on 23rd February, 1992 near Village Digah on Gorakhpur Basti Road, U.P. According to the complainant at the time of accident, Darshan Singh son of Malkiat Singh was driving the truck and Nachhattar Singh was the Conductor. As a result of accident, Darshan Singh received minor injuries but Nachhattar Singh, Conductor, received serious injuries who ultimately succumbed to injuries. According to the complainant/ Darshan Singh became scared of the situation and left the place of the accident. The complainant sent an intimation about the incident to the Insurance Company on the same date. Later on, he submitted his claim form duly completed on 26.5.1993. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim filed by the complainant. That is how the complainant preferred a complaint before the State Commission on 12th October, 1993 claiming compensation of Rs. 9,40,190/ -. The complaint was contested on behalf of the Insurance Company on various pleas inter alia that the claim of the complainant had already been repudiated after thorough investigation and consideration and there being no deficiency in service. It was also pleaded that there was ample circumstantial evidence which showed that the complainant had foisted a false claim against the Insurance Company. According to the Insurance Company, after receiving an information from the complainant about accident, Avinash Chander Srivastava, Proprietor of Avinash & Co., Valuer, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, was deputed to investigate the matter. The Surveyor reported that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Nachhattar Singh and driving licence of Nachhattar Singh was not produced for verification. In the First Information Report, lodged by one Dalip Singh, in the concerned police station it was reported that Nachhattar Singh was driving the truck at the time of a accident. The other Surveyor Shri D.K. Jain also found that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Nachhattar Singh who was not holding a valid driving licence. The matter was further investigated by M/s. R.S. Investigators who found that Nachhattar Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he was not issued any driving licence by the S.D.M., Una.

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties and considering the material placed on the record, the State Commission returned the finding that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company was justified and did not constitute a deficiency in service so as to give rise to cause of action for complaint under me Consumer Protection Act. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission which is under disposal.

COUNSEL for the appellant canvassed before us that the State Commission committed legal error in holding that the opposite party repudiated the claim on justifiable grounds. The State Commission was not justified in giving undue importance to the opinion of the experts who had no evidence or material to render such an opinion. There was non -application of mind by the officers of the Insurance Company while repudiating the claim. On the other hand Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company was fully justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. The Insurance Company got the matter investigated through three independent investigators and all were of the opinion that at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by Shri Nachhattar Singh who did not hold a valid licence. It was stressed on behalf of the Insurance Company that the claim of the complainant apart from having got processed through three investigators was equally routed and considered through the hierarchy of its executive officers. The claim was rejected after considering all the relevant factors. There was a proper application of mind by the officers of the Insurance Company.

WE have considered me relevant contentions of the parties and have gone through the record of the case. In our opinion the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not well founded. The Insurance Company got the matter investigated by three independent investigators i.e. Avinash Chander Srivastava, Shri D.K. Jain, Surveyor & Loss Assessor and M/s. R.S. Investigators. All of them were of the opinion that at the time of accident, the truck was being driven by Shri Nachhattar Singh who did not hold a valid licence. It is also pertinent to note that the First Information Report dated 4th March, 1992 was lodged by one Dalip Singh son of Attar Singh with the relevant police station which disclosed that Nachhattar Singh was driving the truck at that time. Darshan Singh who received minor injuries did not report the matter to the police and ran away from the scene. We agree with the submissions made on behalf of the Insurance Company. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim without proper application of mind. Repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company after obtaining and considering three separate survey reports from qualified Surveyors and by its officers could not be said to constitute deficiency in service so as to give rise to the cause of action under the Consumer Protection Act. We are of the opinion that the Insurance Company placed sufficient material on record to justify mat the repudiation of the claim was bona fide and for cogent reasons. Despite persuasive arguments on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant we are not inclined to hold otherwise. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission was right in holding that the nature of the controversy between the parties justified that the matter should be investigated before a Civil Court, where the complainant as well as tile Insurance Company would have ample opportunities to examine the witnesses at length and would have elaborate trial of the case. We affirm the finding of the State Commission.

AS a result, we have no hesitation in upholding the Order of the State Commission and in dismissing the appeal. However, we hope, that in case the complainant approaches the Civil Court by way of a suit for claiming the compensation, the Civil Court will sympathetically consider the application for the complainant filed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, for exclusion of the time during which the complainant has been prosecuting the complaint before the State Commission as well as this Commission. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.