RAJINDER KUMAR vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

THE car of the revision petitioner (complainant before the District Forum), was insured with the respondent/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with effect from 24.9.2007. It met with an accident on 30.6.2008. The claim of the Complainant under the policy was repudiated by the insurer on 29.5.2009. The consumer complaint filed against repudiation was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, but the State Commission reversed the decision of the District Forum and allowed the appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. As will be presently seen, the sole issue involved in the matter was whether this car, insured as a private car, was being used for commercial purpose.

THE letter of repudiation of the claim from the insurer referred to FIR No. 53 of 30.6.2008 registered with Yamuna Nagar Police by one of the occupants, Gurpreet Singh. He had allegedly told the Surveyor/Investigator appointed by the insurer that the vehicle was hired by them for a religious trip for Rs. 25,000. The insurer, therefore, concluded that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose at the time of the accident in contravention of the terms of the policy. The case of the revision petitioner is that there was no evidence in support of this claim of the respondent/insurer. The revision petition further states that: Most importantly, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, who had allegedly lodged the said FIR, had filed an affidavit before the District Forum in which he had categorically stated that he had never lodged any such FIR and he had never taken the vehicle of the Petitioner on hire.

THE District Forum has examined in detail the affidavit of Raj Kumar Verma, the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company. The Investigator has stated that he had met Gurpreet Singh, who had filed the first information report with the police on 30.6.2008 and had mentioned in the FIR that the vehicle No. PB -07K -5111, belonging to Rajinder Singh, was taken on hire to go to Haridwar and Rishikesh. Therefore, Raj Kumar had categorically stated in his affidavit that Gurpreet Singh had told the police that this vehicle had been taken on hire. However, the District Forum has relied on the affidavit of Gurpreet Singh that he never made a statement before the police that the vehicle was taken on hire. The District Forum has also noted that neither the police investigation report nor the affidavit of the investigating police officer were produced before it on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Forum came to a conclusion that it was not proved that this vehicle was being used for commercial purpose.

AS already noted, the above finding of the District Forum has been reversed by the State Commission. The State Commission has observed that: The case of the respondent is that in the month of June, 2008, he, along with his family friends was coming back from Rishikesh and was driving the car which met with an accident due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and in the said accident the respondent got fainted and was taken to Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar and after 2 -3 days he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana where he got treated and regained his consciousness after 8 days of accident and that the respondent was discharged from the hospital after 20 days where he spent Rs. 3,00,000 on treatment. None of the facts stated in the complaint by the respondent is supported by an document except his own self serving affidavit (Ex. CW -1/A) and affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Singh S/o. Harvilas Singh (Ex. CW -2/A) who has stated that the respondent used the car No. PB -07K -5111 only for his own enjoyment. In addition another affidavit (Ex. CW -3/A) has been filed by Sh. Gurpreet Singh who was travelling in said vehicle on 29.6.2008 when it met with accident. It has been deposed by Sh. Gurpreet Singh that Sh. Rajinder Kumar, respondent was with him and was badly injured in the accident. This version of Sh. Gurpreet Singh, is not, at all, tallying with facts mentioned by Sh. Gurpreet Singh himself in the FIR recorded by him at Khijra Ganj, Police Station, Yamuna Nagar. This FIR has been proved as Ex. R -4. Scrutiny of this document clearly reveals that the respondent was not at all travelling in the insured vehicle when it met with accident. Sh. Gurpreet Singh had clearly stated the names and relationship of all the 12 co -travellers in the FIR and had also stated the nature of the injuries suffered by each one of the passengers. Whereas this FIR has absolutely no reference to the respondent being the co -passenger or having suffered any injury. It has clearly been stated in this FIR by Sh. Gurpreet Singh that he had hired the vehicle for visiting Rishikesh and Ponta Sahib. The present affidavit (Ex. CW -3/A) is definitely an afterthought and has been procured to support the version of the respondent. Sh. Gurpreet Singh has stated in Ex. CW -3/A that FIR was recorded by the police officials under influence of the driver of the bus which was involved in the same accident. This argument is not at all tenable because there was absolutely no need for the police to omit reference about a passenger from the list of injured/expired who was the owner of the vehicle. In fact, Sh. Gurpreet Singh has narrated the names of all the 12 passengers who were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident. The respondent has claimed that he himself got fainted in the accident but the FIR was recorded by Sh. Gurpreet Singh, who was well aware of all the passengers and he could never omit the name of the owner of the vehicle. In the complaint, the respondent has mentioned that he was travelling with his relatives and family friends when accident took place, but no relation with any passenger has been stated/proved. The version of Sh. Gurpreet Singh is definitely an afterthought and also proves that the complaint is a concocted story which is not at all supported by any document. Had the respondent actually been treated at the Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana, he could have brought on record certain medical record documents in support of his version specially when he is reported to have spent Rs. 3,00,000 on his treatment.

I have carefully considered the records, as filed by the revision petitioner and heard the petitioner''s Counsel, Mr. Tarun Gupta, learned Counsel has chosen to rely completely on the affidavit of Gurpreet Singh in which the deponent had categorically denied making any statement to the police regarding taking the vehicle on hire. As per this affidavit, he was travelling in the vehicle, along with its owner Rajinder Kumar, when it met with the accident. Learned Counsel however, could not explain why the facts were stated differently in the FIR filed before the police, immediately after the accident. He could also not explain as to what was the need for Gurpreet Singh to file the FIR when the owner of the vehicle himself was travelling in it at the time of accident. Strangely enough, the FIR does not even mention the owner as one of the passengers. The only plausible explanation is that this affidavit was filed nearly 15 months after the accident only with a purpose to present the facts differently from what they were as per the FIR. I find myself in complete agreement with the observations of the State Commission mentioned above and with the view of the State Commission that the affidavit of Gurpreet Singh is a product of afterthought not supported by any documents. The revision petition accordingly fails on merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.