JAGMAL SINGH YADAV vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE present appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against order dated 28th September, 2001, passed by District Forum (Central) Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 817/2001, entitled Shri Jagmal Singh Yadav v. THE Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. THE appellant, Shri Jagmal Singh Yadav, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that his Maruti Car, bearing Registration No. DL-3C-L-4773, insured with respondent Insurance Company for Rs. 2,09,314/-, met with an accident on 19th December, 1998, at about 10.45 p.m. It was stated that at the time of the accident the car was being driven by one Shri Ranbir Sharma, a friend of the appellant, and the appellant was sitting by his side. Since the car was insured with the respondent Insurance Company, the appellant preferred his claim under the insurance policy, but the claim, so preferred by the appellant, was repudiated by the respondent Insurance Company, vide letter dated 25th June, 1999, on the ground that the car in question at the time of accident was being driven by the complainant and not by his friend Shri Ranbir Sharma and that the appellant, who was driving the car in question at the time of the alleged accident, was not holding a valid licence. THE grievance of the appellant, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that the repudiation of his claim by the Insurance Company was illegal and unlawful. It was prayed that the respondent Insurance Company be directed to refund the amount spent by the appellant on the repairs of the car in question, together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. THE appellant had also claimed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and other expenses to the tune of Rs. 13,000/-. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent Insurance Company and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the complaint filed by the appellant was misconceived because the respondent was not guilty of any ''deficiency in service''. On merits it was stated that soon after receipt of information/claim from the end of the appellant, the respondent Insurance Company appointed an Investigator/Surveyor by name Shri S.K. Rathee who after investigating the matter submitted his report dated 19th March, 1999, stating therein that at the time of accident, the appellant himself was on the steering wheel of the car in question. It was stated that the claim preferred by the appellant has been rightly repudiated on the ground that at the time of the accident the car in question was being driven by the appellant who was not holding an effective and valid driving licence.

The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that the claim of the appellant had been rightly repudiated by the respondent, Insurance Company and on the basis of the above finding, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and also have carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record, it is not in dispute that the car in question was comprehensively insured for Rs. 2,09,340/- with respondent Insurance Company on the date when the accident in question took place on 19th December, 1998. The claim, which was preferred by the appellant, with the Insurance Company has been repudiated by the respondent Insurance Company, vide letter dated 25th June, 1999, solely on the ground that at the time of the accident, the car in question was being driven by the complainant who was not holding an effective and valid driving licence. The case of the appellant is that at the time of accident the car in question was being driven not by himself, but by one of his friends, namely Shri Ranbir Sharma and the appellant was sitting by his side. The only question requiring consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the car in question at the time of the accident on 19th December, 1998 was being driven by the complainant or by his friend, Shri Ranbir Sharma. The learned District Forum, as already stated, vide impugned order, has held that the claim of the appellant had been rightly repudiated by the respondent Insurance Company. The operative portion of the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, reads as under : "A perusal of the FIR lodged by the complainant, goes to show that prior to the lodging of the complaint, in writing, the complainant had made a statement before the police in which he tried to improve later on by alleging that since he was in the emergency ward of the hospital, when his statement was recorded and because of unstable state of mind and confusion he could not allege that the accident took place because of rash negligence of driving of the bus driver. Even in the alleged application filed by the complainant with the police, there is no mention that at the time of accident, the insured car was driven by Ranbir Sharma, a friend of the complainant. Faced with this situation, the learned Counsel for the complainant, Mr. Rana, contended that in the claim filed in the relevant column it is alleged that at the time of accident the car was driven by Sh. Ranbir Sainal but in the complaint filed in the Court, in para-3, it is alleged by the complainant that the car was being driven by Ranbir Sharma. It is difficult to believe that the complainant who is a practising Advocate, forgot to mention in the statement given to the police which was recorded twice, that at the time of accident, the insured car was being driven by his friend Ranbir Sharma. Further more there are photographs of the insured car which met with accident, which has been placed on record by the Insurance Company. From the same it is evident that right driver''s side of the car had the impact of the accident and in such a situation, it is difficult to believe that if nobody else other than the complainant had been on the steering wheel, he would have escaped without a scratch and the complainant, who was alleged to sitting by the side of the driver, would suffer injuries necessitating his admission in the hospital. So it seems that the complainant being well versed with law, apprehending repudiation of his claim took up a false plea alleging that at the time of accident, the car was being driven by his friend Ranbir Sharma @ Sainal. The matter was got investigated by the O.P. through a Surveyor, who has filed his affidavit before the Forum alleging therein that as per his investigations, the said car at the time of accident was driven by the complainant himself, who after the accident was admitted in the Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. Even the sworn affidavit of said Ranbir Sharma @ Sainal has not been placed on record by the complainant. On behalf of the opposite party Company reliance has been placed upon 1986-99 Consumer 3376 (NS), Sachin Balachandra Sha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The observations made in the authority to some extent cover the plea taken by the opposite party So we have no hesitation in holding that the claim has been rightly repudiated by the opposite party and no infirmity can be found with the same and as such finding no force in the complaint, this complaint is ordered to be dismissed but in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs."

(underlined by us)

WITH a view to satisfy ourselves, we have put a specific query to the appellant as to whether in the statement which the appellant gave to the police which was the first on the point of time, the appellant had mentioned this fact that at the time of the accident the car in question was being driven by Shri Ranbir Sharma and not by himself. The appellant admitted the fact that in the above statement, which was given to the police the name of Shri Ranbir Sharma had not been mentioned by him as the driver of the car at the time of the accident and the explanation offered for the above vital omission on the part of the appellant was far from satisfactory. The age old saying that ''men may lie, but not the circumstances'', is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not in dispute that the impact of the accident was on driver''s side of the car in question and had Shri Ranbir Sharma, the friend of the appellant, been on the driver''s side, decidedly he would have sustained injuries. But strangely, said Shri Ranbir Sharma did not receive even a scratch on his person and it was the appellant who, after the accident, had to be admitted in the hospital as he had received injuries. The above circumstance falsifies the stand taken by the appellant that it was Shri Ranbir Sharma, his friend, and not he, who was on the driver''s seat in the vehicle in question at the time of the accident. Therefore, even the circumstantial evidence does not support the case of the appellant. Thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of substance. The order being impugned in the present proceedings is a well reasoned order which suffers from no infirmity, so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, devoid of substance and the same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.