SUSHILA GAUTAM vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO

BRIEFLY, the case of the complainant is that her husband purchased a new Tata Truck in the year, 1982. It was registered by the Registering Authority and numbered as UPP-8645. He transferred that truck in the name of the complainant subsequently and the Registering Authority registered that in her name. The registration number was then changed to DIL-2562. The said truck required heavy repairs and for that purpose she arranged a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from. M/s. Sanjit Finance Company, New Delhi. On 3rd November, 1986 the vehicle was got insured with the respondent for comprehensive risk for the period from 3rd Nov., 1986 to 2nd November, 1987.

THE vehicle was got duly repaired in Nov. 1986. THE complainant, it is pleaded, found the truck missing from the place where it was parked alongwith registration book and insurance policy, which had been kept in the truck. On enquiry she was informed by some neighbours that Shri R.C. Misra had taken away the truck and one bearded person was driving the same. She lodged a report about the theft with the police at Police Station, Ghaziabad. On 12th December, 1986, she also reported about the theft of the truck to R.T.O. Delhi and the Insurance Co. one Shri R.C. Misra was arrested by the police and was challaned under-section 37 of the Cr.P.C. That the respondent appointed Sh. Deepak Anand, Surveyor to survey and investigate her claim. It is alleged that the surveyor did not make full enquiry and delayed the matter and ultimately she was informed by the respondent vide letter dated 10th August, 89 that her claim could not be paid by the insurance. She claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent on account of the price of the truck. She further claimed interest on Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent @ 18% p.a. from 12.12.86 to 7.8.90, the date of filing the complaint, amounting to Rs. 1,05,258/- . Consequently, she filed a complaint for recovery of the total amount of Rs. 2,65,258/- with further interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment of the amount.

The complaint has been contested by the respondent Insurance Co. Regarding the transfer of the truck in favour of the complainant by her husband. It has been pleaded by the respondent that they were informed by the husband of complainant that she got the said truck transferred to her name by fraud and by producing false and forge documents with the intention of depriving him of his self acquired property. The husband of the complainant had also informed the Insurance Co. that he had not signed any letter for the transfer of vehicle to her name and has requested that the claim should not be paid to the complainant. The respondent further pleaded that it was discovered from the investigation made by the surveyor that out of the loan raised by the complainant from the financier, she repaid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- within a short period of 25 days from the date of raising the loan and that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- out of this was paid to the financier from the account of Sh. R.C. Misra. That thereafter Sh. R.C. Misra tried to sell the vehicle to one Sh. Monoharanand at Varanasi The Transport Authorities at Varanasi started making enquiries regarding the truck and Sh. Misra in that situation slipped away from there. The respondent contended that thorough investigations carried out by the company. It was revealed that the vehicle had fraudulently been transferred in the name of complainant by forging the signature of Sh. B.D. Gautam. It was further pleaded by the respondent that in reply to their interrogatories Sh. Yog Bhushan, who was the son of the complainant has stated that the cash of Rs. 40,000/- was given to him by her mother at Ghaziabad and he obtained a bank draft from the Syndicate Bank, Ghaziabad for this amount and against this state ment of Shri Yog Bhushan, the complainant herself has admitted, in her rejoinder that the said bank draft was purchased against cash by Shri R.C. Misra, who was well acquainted with them. The stand of the respondent in brief was that from the record and facts of the case it was apparent that there was a conspiracy and that in fact no theft had taken place and this fraudulent claim has been made to defraud the respondent company.

WE have gone through the record, heard the parties at length and examined the statements of the witnesses. The contention of the complainant was that the truck No. DIL-2562 was registered in her name and was duly insured was stolen on 12.2.1986 and that the respondent Insurance Company was liable to pay the claim made by her. The respondent on the other hand rejected the claim and have taken the stand that it was a planned conspiracy to defraud the company by disposing off the vehicle on one hand and also to claim the amount from the company fraudulently and that the reported theft was a concocted story.

WE have seen all the evidences and documents relied by the parties very minutely. On the body of the plaint the complainant has mentioned her name as Mrs. Sushila Gautam W/o. Shri Bishan Swaroop Gautam C/o Mr. R.K. Aggarwal of E-83, Saket, Delhi, whereas in the very 1st document which is certificate from R.T.O. Delhi she has recorded her name as Sushila Rani Sharma D/o. Shri B.R. Sharma, 682, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. In her affidavit dt. 9th December, 1991 before the Commission she states that sometime during October, 1986 the said vehicle was transferred by her husband in her .name. This statement of her is contradicted by the contents of the registered letter dated 25.5.1987 written by her husband to Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad (U.P.). He has written that she got the truck transferred by producing false and forged documents with ulterior motive. The same conclusion can be drawn from the letter dated 17.2.88 written by Shri Bishan Swaroop to the Manager, National Insurance Company on 14.3.1988. There is no valid explanation by the complainant about the source of repayment of major part of the loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the financier of the truck within 25 days of raising the loan. In her affidavit dated 9th December, 1991 submitted before the Commission at para 6 she has solemnly sworn that she obtained the Bank Draft No. 186489 dt. 26.11.86 for Rs. 40,000/- in favour of M/s. Sanjit Pal Finance Co., through her son Yug Bhushan Gautam contrary to the above statement she has stated under para 5 of her rejoinder that she had requested Mr. R.C. Misra to purchase the draft against cash from the Bank. She lodged the complaint about theft of vehicle with Police Station, Ghaziabad on 12.12.86 and as per the contents of letter from R.T.O. Varanasi dt. 20.3.87, it was made out that the same Mr. R.C. Misra was having a General Power of Attorney in his possession for the transfer of the truck which he had presented before that Authority on 25.2.87. It is not explained as to why all these vital facts were suppressed by the complainant in the original plaint before us.

IN her rejoinder dated 20th Nov. 1990 she states that her husband finally deserted her sometime in the middle of year 1988, whereas in her affidavit she gives the date of desertion as April/May 1987, although this part of her statement has no direct bearing on the conclusion of the case, it does amply speak about the non-consistency in the stand of the complainant.

DURING her cross examination by way of interrogatories she was put a direct question about the place where the truck was got repaired and also regarding the production of bills. She simply replied that the same was repaired at Delhi and that the bills were not kept as that was not considered necessary. She did not give the name of the relevant workshop even. According to her own version the truck required heavy repairs for which she had arranged the loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the financier and as a natural course the production of such bills and name of workshop was necessary. To another question as to who made payment for the repairs, she stated that as far she recollected it was made by the financier on her behalf. She was even not able to give the name of the driver employed by her. All these replies given by the complainant appeared to be evasive and not consistent. Similarly, Shri Babu Ram father of complainant gave an evasise reply when he was cross examined regarding payment of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. He simply stated that he paid this sum from the sale proceeds of his house at Ghaziabad. No number and other particulars of the house and sale deed etc. could be adduced by him. He even could not say about the date of payment of the huge amount. It is very interesting to note that the complaint was filed on 7.10.90 and that the Bank Draft for Rs. 40,000/- for payment to the financier was made by the complainant through Sh. R.C. Misra on 26.11.86. The complainant in her rejoinder dated 20th Nov. 1990 for the 1st time mentioned at para ''5'' that Shri Misra had used a pseudo name ''Manoharanand'' and that the same pseudo name was used by him. Subsequently while attempting to get the truck transferred in his name at Varanasi on 25.2.87. These vital facts have not been mentioned by her in the original plaint for the best reasons known to her. When these facts were in her personal knowledge. She should have narrated the same in the original complaint where she has repeatedly mentioned the name of Shri R.C. Misra where she had even alleged to have stolen the truck.

All the above contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of the complainant herself and particularly about the suppression of material facts in the original plaint make the case of complainant doubtful, that the truck was stolen. By merely lodging a report with the Police Authorities does not prove that a theft has actually taken place.

NONE of the witnesses examined by the claimant could stand the test of cross examination to our satisfaction and we have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the complainant had not come up with clean hands and made a cock & bull story about the alleged theft of vehicle with the intention of defrauding the Insurance Company and as such the claim stands rejected. We also impose a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the opposite party by the complainant for lodging this fictitious complaint within a period of 30 days from the date of order. Complaint dismissed with costs.