New India Assurance Co. Limited vs CAPTAIN M.P.S. PUJJI

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 21.2.2002, passed by District Forum-III Janakpuri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1147/2000, entitled - Captain M.P.S. Pujji v. THE New India Assurance Company Limited.

THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Captain M.P.S. Pujji had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the car of the respondent, bearing registration No. DL 4CE 6787, duly insured with the appellant from 22.10.1998 to 21.10.1999 met with an accident on 5.11.1998 while saving a child who suddenly had come from the left side and in that process the right side of the car had hit the iron gate and the pillar of house No. C-4F/283, Janakpuri. As the car, which met with an accident on 5.11.1998 was duly insured with the appellant the respondent lodged a claim under the insurance policy vide letter dated 7.11.1998. It was stated that the vehicle in question was given to M/s. Deep Motors, Peera Garhi for repairs where the same was surveyed by the Surveyor of the appellant who assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 50,797/-. It was stated that despite assessment of loss by the Surveyor to the above extent, the appellant appointed an Investigator who without considering the material and the survey report, submitted a report stating that as the vehicle was without any insurance from 11.2.1998 to 21.10.1998, i.e., for about 8 months, there was suspicion about the alleged accident. It was stated that the appellant, relying upon the report of the Investigator, repudiated the claim of the respondent. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the respondent in the complaint filed by him before District Forum had prayed that a direction be issued to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 50,796/- together with interest @ 21% p.a. from 6.11.1998 till payment. THE respondent had also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and torture. The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the appellant, the insurance of the vehicle in question valid from 22.10.1998 to 21.10.1998 was admitted. It was also stated that the respondent had handed over letter dated 7.11.1998 on 12.11.1988 informing about the accident of the vehicle in question. It was stated that on receipt of intimation from the end of the respondent, the appellant appointed Sh. Jeevan Aggarwal to survey, investigate and assess the loss and said Sh. Jeevan Aggarwal inspected the vehicle in question on 21.11.1998 and thereafter, submitted his report on 30.12.1998 assesing the loss at Rs. 54,959.75. It was stated that thereafter, the appellant appointed an Investigator by name, Sh. J.C. Bhagat to inquire into the cause, nature, circumstances and genuineness of the claim. Said Sh. J.C. Bhagat investigated and submitted his report and as per the contention advanced by the appellant in the reply/written version, the claim of the respondent was repudiated on the basis of the report of the Investigator being not genuine.

The learned District Forum vide impugned order has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 50,797/- to the respondent together with interest @ 10% p.a. from 7.1.1999 till payment. The District Forum has also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation to be paid to the respondent by the appellant.

FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also 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 which met with an accident on 5.11.1998 was duly insured with the appellant for the period from 22.10.1998 to 21.10.1999. The only question requiring consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the claim of the respondent was rightly repudiated. The appellant, soon after the receipt of intimation from the respondent, had appointed the Surveyor by name, Sh. Jeevan Aggarwal to investigate and assess the loss. Said Sh. Jeevan Aggarwal, the Surveyor, so appointed inspected the vehicle on 21.11.1998 and thereafter, submitted his report on 30.12.1998 assessing the loss at Rs. 54,959.75. The appellant after the receipt of the report from the end of said Sh. Jeevan Aggarwal appointed an Investigator Sh. J.C. Bhagat and as per the case of the appellant it was on the basis of the report of said Sh. J.C. Bhagat that the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant. A copy of the said report submitted by Sh. J.C. Bhagat has been annexed by the appellant along with the Memorandum and Grounds of Appeal and has been marked as Annexure ''A-20'' (pages 70-73 of the Paper Book). During the course of arguments, it was vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the vehicle in question was without an insurance for about 8 months, i.e., from 11.2.1998 to 21.10.1998 which gives a reasonable suspicion about the involvement of the vehicle in question in the alleged accident on 5.11.1998. It is further stated by him that the default on the part of the respondent in having the insurance of the vehicle after a gap of 8 months indicates that the alleged accident might have taken place during the uncovered period. In our opinion, the above contention being advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit firstly, because the same is based on the report of Investigator Sh. J.C. Bhagat. We have perused the contents of the said report. In the above said report no such finding has been given by said Sh. J.C. Bhagat. The operative portion of the said report reads as under : "Some how or the other, the insurance was renewed after a lapse of more than seven months. The insured has indicated just after ten days of the renewal that the car was reportedly involved in the accident while saving a child. Prima facie the accident appears to be a story not involving truth. However, it has not been possible to catch hold of any strong point which could have enabled us to disprove the story presented by the insured." (Underlined by us)

ON a perusal of the report of Sh. Bhagat, it is apparent that said Sh. Bhagat only had a suspicion. Suspicion, howsoever, strong cannot take the place of proof and the burden of proving that the alleged accident took place during the uncovered period and not during the currency of the policy, was on the appellant and decidedly the appellant has failed to discharge the onus which was on the appellant. Secondly, it is not in dispute that after the lapse of earlier policy the respondent had taken out a fresh insurance cover valid from 22.10.1998 to 21.10.1999 and before issuing the insurance cover, the vehicle in question, as per the established practice, must have been inspected by the functionaries of the appellant. In case, the vehicle, as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, had met with an accident during the uncovered period, the above fact would have been decidedly noticed by the persons who must have inspected the vehicle in question before the issue of insurance cover valid from 22.10.1998 to 21.10.1999. Thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merit. The order being impugned in the present proceedings as a matter of fact 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. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.