PREMANAND BIJLAWAN vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE Company

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.3.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Dehradoon in Complaint Case No. 302/1991.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant got insured his Truck No. UMS-8099 with the Oriental Insurance Company. It is alleged that the insurance took place on 8.12.1990 ending on 7.12.1991. According to the complainant, the truck met with an accident on 12.12.1990. THE Insurance Company was informed and an F.I.R. was also lodged with the police station. THE claim was also registered with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company has neither repudiated the claim nor made the payment. THE complainant, therefore, prayed that the claim be decreed according to the estimate submitted by him. THE case of the complainant is opposed by the Insurance Company in the written statement. It is alleged by the Oriental Insurance Company that the comprehensive insurance of the truck was taken by the complainant by making fraudulent, mis-representation of facts and concealing the true facts. THE some of the questions were left blank and wrong replies were given. THE chassis number and engine number were not mentioned in the proposal form. THE model of truck was mentioned of 1988. THE copy of the proposal form is filed alongwith the written statement. It is further alleged that on 8.12.1990 was Saturday and 9.12.1990 was Sunday, therefore, the said proposal form was submitted in the Branch Office at Rishikesh on 10.12.1990. When it was found that the said proposal form is incomplete and the truck being UMS-8099 the Competent Authority became suspicious about the particulars of the impugned vehicle, therefore, an employee was directed to verify the same from the ARTO Office, Rishikesh. On enquiry, it was revealed that the impugned truck is of an old model and its model is military disposal. THE said enquiry was conducted on 10.12.1990. THE photo-copy of the letter is attached herewith as Annexure No. 2. The old model of the truck was not to be insured comprehensively, therefore, a registered letter dated 10.12.1990 was written to the complainant intimating that this vehicle cannot be comprehensively insured and the excess premium charged was refunded. It is further alleged that the accident did not take place as alleged on 6.12.1990 while it has been alleged that the accident took place on 12.12.1990. On enquiry by the Insurance Company, it was found that the accident took place before the insurance cover was taken.

The learned District Consumer Forum, after considering the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident in dispute took place on 6.12.1990 and the policy was wrongly obtained by the complainant, it, therefore, dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the complainant filed the present appeal and has challenged the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the accident took place on 6.12.1990 and not on 12.12.1990. According to the learned Counsel, the full particulars of the truck were not given, hence the comprehensive insurance was done but when on enquiry it was found that the truck was of an old model, the excess premium was refunded and the insurance was done only as per provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

A perusal of the file goes to show that the proposal is dated 8.12.1990. In this proposal form the chassis number and the engine number have not been mentioned. It was also not mentioned whether the vehicle was an old military disposal vehicle. In order to verify the details of the truck, one employee was deputed by the Insurance Company for enquiry these particulars. The enquiries revealed that the model was military disposal truck and gave the engine number and chassis number also. On the basis of these enquiries, a letter was written on the same day to the complainant informing of the fact that only insurance under the Act can be done as the vehicle is an old one. The rest of the excess premium was sent back alongwith this letter. Thus this evidence clearly goes to show that the truck could not have been insured comprehensively and only insurance under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act was done. It was compulsory for running the vehicle on the road. A report of the Surveyor is on record. The copy of the report goes to show that on enquiries, it was found that the accident took place on 6.12.1990 and not on 12.12.1990 as alleged by the complainant. It has also been mentioned that the detailed report is sent by the DGBR Office, Narendra Nagar who keeps the record of the accident and the reports are submitted daily. From enquiry, it was revealed from the accident took place on 6.12.1990. Thus in view of the above evidence which has been discussed here and in detail by the learned District Consumer Forum, it is apparent that the accident took place on 6.12.1990 and not on 12.12.1990 before the insurance policy was taken out. Moreover, the insurance was not comprehensive but under the Act meaning thereby it was a third party accident. We do not find any reasons to differ from the findings of the learned District Forum. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order

THE appeal is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the opposite party. THE judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.