Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs SHYAMLAL AGRAWAL

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is preferred against the order dated 12.3.1999 in Complaint Case No. 364/98 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (for short hereafter Distt. Forum), whereby the appellant insurer was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 71,740/- as compensation due to the damage of the complainant/respondent''s vehicle in an accident.

THE relevant facts not in dispute are that the complainant/respondent owns a vehicle Tempo-Trax bearing registration No. M.P.G. 8928. THE appellant insurer insured the said vehicle for the period from 29.5.1997 to 28.5.1998. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident on 17.10.1997, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Mandir Hasaud. THE respondent intimated the appellant about the accident and also filled up the claim form. THE appellant''s Surveyor went to the spot and on assessment found the damage to the extent of Rs. 71,740/-. He submitted his report to the appellant insurer. However, the claim of complainant/respondent was not settled and no payment towards the damage as above was made by the appellant. Hence, the complainant/respondent in the complaint filed in the District Forum, claimed award of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation as also interest thereon. The appellants in their reply by way of an affidavit averred that the aforesaid vehicle though registered as private vehicle, was being plied as taxi at the time of accident and thus there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance. It was further averred that as the complainant/respondent did not submit the bills of expenses incurred in repair of the vehicle, hence the specific loss to the vehicle could not be assessed by the appellant hence the claim was not finalised.

The learned District Forum in the impugned order observed that it was not proved that the vehicle was being plied as taxi and it was thus held that the breach of terms of policy was not established. It was further held that the Surveyor reported the loss to the extent of Rs. 71,740/- which was payable by the insurer to the complainant/respondent and that no bills were required to be submitted by the respondent in order to succeed in his claim.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant/insurer during argument reiterated the stand taken by it in the complaint. It was urged that in his affidavit filed in the District Forum, though the respondent stated that the vehicle was not being plied as taxi, but contrary to this the First Information Report (FIR) regarding the above accident, would itself indicate that the vehicle was taken for hire or reward. It was, therefore, urged that the respondent could not succeed in his claim as there was breach of terms of policy. It was further submitted that the respondent did not furnish bills of repair of the vehicle and made unholy haste in instituting the complaint in the District Forum without waiting for the outcome of the inquiry being made by the appellant/insurer, regarding legitimacy and admissibility of the claim put forth by the respondent. The main question that arises for consideration is : as to whether the vehicle was being plied in breach of terms of policy? It is undisputed that the vehicle was registered as private vehicle. Averment of the appellant is that the vehicle was hired and was being plied as taxi. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the appellant heavily placed reliance on the copy of the FIR filed by him in the complaint case. However, it may be noticed that the said FIR has been recorded by the station House Officer on the basis of ''Dehati Nalishi'' lodged by Shankarlal. The respondent has however filed affidavit of the said shankarlal who has stated therein that the vehicle was not taken for hire and reward and, thus, had refuted the appellants'' averments in that regard. Shankarlal has not been cross-examined on behalf of the appellant on the statement made by him in the said affidavit. In view of above, the statement made on oath by Shankarlal negatives the contents of FIR. The appellants have also not filed the affidavit of the Station House Officer who recorded the FIR. There is no other material to show that the vehicle was being plied as taxi.

IN view of the above, it is clear that the District Forum was justified in concluding that the appellant has not proved that the vehicle was being plied as taxi, in breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The next question that arises for consideration is : as to whether the appellant could repudiate or resist the claim of the respondent on the ground that the latter did not furnish the receipts of expenses incurred towards repairs of the vehicle? As noticed earlier, it is undisputed that the appellant on receiving information about the accident appointed Surveyor to assess the damage. The said Surveyor submitted his report on 19.2.1998 assessing the damage at Rs. 71,740/-. The copy of the Survey report is placed on record by the appellant. That being so, there is little scope for doubt that the respondent''s vehicle was got damaged in the accident and the Surveyor appointed by appellant itself reported the damage to the extent of Rs. 71,740/-. In the circumstances, there was hardly any justification for the appellant to insist for the receipts of expenses incurred by the respondent towards the repairs of the vehicle or to withhold his payment on that ground. There appears to be no such term in the policy, issued by the appellant.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant in the above context submitted that the respondent was obliged to place original bills of repairs on record and has placed reliance on a decision by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., in Avadh Behari Lal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, 2000 (1) CPR 67. In the said decision, it was observed that the photo copies of the bills having been produced by the claimant were sufficient the expenses incurred, without production of original bills which were presumably filed by the claimant at the time of preferring his claim with the insurer.

HOWEVER, the fact situation in the present case is different. As noticed earlier, it is clear that the Surveyor''s report clearly indicated the extent of damage and the respondent could not be forced to produce bills to prove the expenses incurred by him, in order to succeed in his claim. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The accident took place on 17.10.1997. The respondent preferred complaint on 3.7.1998 i.e., after more than 8 months. The complaint lodged as above could not attract the comment that it was preferred hastily. The contention as above of the learned Counsel for appellant has no substance.

No othe r point was raised in this appeal. The appeal has no merit. It is hereby dismissed. The order of the District Forum is maintained. Appeal dismissed.