LALIT KUMAR OSWAL vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 7.12.2001 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called as ''District Forum'' in short) in Complaint Case No. 186/2001 dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant claiming compensation for the damage to his vehicle.

RELEVANT facts no longer in dispute are : that the complainant is registered owner of Maruti 800 car bearing registration No. MP-24-G 5328. The complainant/appellant purchased the above car in April, 1999 and initially obtained comprehensive insurance for the period from 12.4.1999 to 11.4.2000. The comprehensive insurance policy was subsequently renewed for the period from 12.4.2000 to 11.4.2001 under renewed policy No. 320901/2000/6100184. According to the complainant, the car met with an accident on 22.4.2000 and got badly damaged. The appellant intimated the respondent/insurer about the accident. The respondent appointed Surveyor Shri R.K. Handa for assessment of damages. He submitted his report. The respondent/Insurance Company thereafter, sent a letter of queries dated 30.4.2001 stating that the non-reply thereof may result in repudiation of the claim. Reply dated 3.5.2001 was sent by the complainant through one Shri K.L Lunia. However, the complainant was not paid the amount of compensation claimed by him on account of damage to his car. Hence, he filed the complaint.

The opposite party/respondent resisted the complaint. According to it, there was no accident on 22.4.2000. It was further averred by the respondent that the complainant had reported to them about the matter by letter dated 28.4.2000 handed over to the respondent/insurer on 1.5.2000. It was further averred that the date of accident as mentioned in the said letter was 24.4.2000. It was also averred that the matter was never reported to the police by the complainant/appellant. It was further averred that the complainant did not reply and did not take proper interest towards the queries raised by the respondent/insurer in its letter dated 30.4.2001. It was, therefore, averred that since the claim for compensation by the complainant was not proper, hence the same was repudiated.

THE learned District Forum in the impugned order dated 7.12.2001 held that the complainant has failed to establish that there was any accident of his vehicle on 24.4.2000. It was also observed by the District Forum that the complainant did not lodge police report of the alleged accident and possibility cannot be ruled out that the vehicle at the time of the accident was being driven by his driver who did not hold proper valid driving licence. In view of the said observations, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant submitted that the vehicle was got comprehensively insured by him. He had also reported the matter to the respondent/insurer without unreasonable delay. It was submitted that it was not mandatory for the appellant to lodge police report. It was urged in the above context that as no criminal offence was committed and the vehicle merely met with an accident, report to the police was not lodged by the complainant/appellant. It was further submitted that queries and letters sent to the complainant were duly replied to by him. It was further urged that from the report of the Surveyor of the respondent, it was clearly established that the vehicle of the complainant was damaged and he was, therefore, entitled to get compensation as (sic.).

AS against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent/insurer submitted that the complainant failed to establish that his vehicle was involved in an accident. It has been submitted that though in the complaint, the date of accident was mentioned as 22.4.2001, however, in the claim form submitted by the complainant, the date of accident was stated to be 24.4.2000. It was further submitted that police report should have been lodged as per terms of the insurance policy. It was further submitted that the complainant did not furnish material to the respondent as desired by the letter, resulting in non-finalisation of his claim. It was, therefore, urged that the learned District Forum justifiably dismissed the complaint of the appellant. The main question that arises for consideration is : as to whether the appellant''s vehicle met with an accident and got damaged as has been claimed by him ? It is not disputed that the vehicle of the complainant/appellant was comprehensively insured at the time of the alleged accident. It is also not in dispute that the complainant/appellant had submitted motor claim form intimating the respondent/insurer, about the accident along with estimate of the damage. The said claim form is on the record of the District Forum. It is stated in the said claim form that the accident took place on 24.4.2000 at Banjara Ghat. It was reported therein that the vehicle had gone out of control and turned turtle. Undisputedly, the respondent/insurer, appointed Shri R.K. Handa as its Surveyor. The report of Surveyor Shri R.K. Handa is filed in the record of the District Forum. The report mentions that the accident took place as the vehicle went out of control. The Surveyor also reported that looking to the damage and spot survey report - the cause of accident seems to be correct. Surveyor Shri R.K. Handa has given a detailed estimate of damage which according to him was to the extent of Rs. 44,904.42 paise.

SOME photographs of the damaged vehicle have also been filed in the District Forum which clearly go to show that the vehicle was extensively damaged. It may be noticed that before filing the complaint, a legal notice was also served by the complainant to the respondent in which it was mentioned that accident as above took place, though the date of accident therein was mentioned as 22.4.2000. There appears to be no specific rebuttal of the assertions in the complaint that no accident whatsoever took place. In fact, as noticed earlier, the respondent/insurer appointed his Surveyor who also in his report stated that on spot survey, he found that the cause of accident mentioned by the complainant appears to be correct.

IN view of the material as above on record, there appears to be no reason to doubt that the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on or about 22.4.2000 as has been asserted by him in his complaint. Though it is true that in the claim form, the date of accident has been mentioned as 24.4.2000, instead of 22.4.2000 yet that mistake could occur due to oversight or slip. However, merely on this count, it cannot be held that there was no accident at all. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that this discrepancy was rightly relied upon by the learned District Forum to hold that there was no accident, does not deserve to be accepted. There appears to be no reason as to why the complaint would unnecessarily damage his own vehicle which was purchased only about two years prior to the accident, or would deliberately mention wrong date of accident. It appears that the finding as above of the District Forum is based on mere guess work or surmises and does not appear to be based on any material on record. Similarly, though the incident was admittedly not reported to the police, but the complainant/respondent has submitted that since the vehicle became unbalanced and turned turtle and none was injured, hence the report to the police was not lodged. It was submitted that it was not mandatory to do so, under the terms of the policy. The contention as above appears to be justified and deserves to be accepted. Since no criminal offence appears to have been made out, it was not mandatory, as per terms of the policy, for the complainant/appellant to lodge report with the police.

It is, therefore, held that the car of the complainant met with an accident on 22.4.2000 as has been averred by him. It is also clear that Surveyor Shri R.K. Handa assessed the net loss at Rs. 44,904.42 paise. There is no reason as to why the report of the Surveyor as above should not be accepted. Accordingly, the loss to the vehicle is estimated to Rs. 44,904.42 paise. Since the vehicle was undisputedly comprehensively insured by the complainant/appellant with the respondent, it appears proper to award compensation to the above extent. It is clear that in the circumstances, the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum was not justified.

THE appeal is, therefore, allowed. THE impugned order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint is set aside. THE complainant is awarded compensation of Rs. 44,904/-. THE respondent shall be liable to pay the above amount to the complainant/appellant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint, till payment thereof. Costs of the litigation throughout quantified at Rs. 1,000/- shall also be liable to be paid to the appellant by the respondent. Appeal allowed.