TARUN CHOUDHARY vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

COMPLAINANT is the appellant preferred the appeal against the order dated 3.7.2003 passed by District Forum, Purnea in Complaint Case No. 61/2000 whereby dismissed the complaint.

THE brief fact of the case is that his vehicle registration No. BEK-4535 financed by R.K. Udyog, Calcutta was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company)-respondent for the period 1994. THE said vehicle while coming from Araria to Purnea met with an accident in order to save sudden appearance of an animal on the road. THE complainant informed the local Thana regarding the accident (Annexure-1) and local office of the Insurance Company and lodged a claim. THE local office registered the claim case and directed to take steps for repair of the vehicle. THE Insurance Company appointed Surveyor and in the supervision of the authority of the Insurance Company the vehicle was repaired as per requirement. THE complainant submitted the bill incurred in connection with the repair of the vehicle in the office of the respondent. THE Surveyor appointed by the Insurance company had also submitted his report. THE Insurance Company demanded the required papers which was submitted by the complainant for the settlement of the claim (Annexure-2). THE contention of the complainant is that he has already deposited the relevant papers of the vehicle with the Insurance Company but he again deposited those papers on 24.4.2002 as per demand which was received (Annexure-3). THE complainant sent several reminders but nothing was heard from the Insurance Company with regard to his claim. THEreafter the complainant sent the notice to the Insurance Company and filed the case before the District Forum. The case of the Insurance Company is that no date of accident was mentioned by the complainant in his claim. The complainant in spite of reminders failed to produce the relevant papers for the settlement of the claim. The conduct of the complainant showed that the alleged accident was doubtful and the claim was vexatious and false. The complainant failed to produce any police report in the matter. No evidence was produced by the complainant disclosing any date of accident in the quantum of damage nor the report of the police about the alleged occurrence. The complainant produced annexures which are photo copies and failed to produce the original documents which shows that he has falsely made the claim.

The District Forum after hearing the parties held that complainant has not mentioned the date of accident in his complaint petition nor disclosed the same during the hearing of the case. Annexure-1 which is said to be the information lodged with the local police also does not mention the date of accident. The receiving date of the complaint before the police station is 23.3.1994 and Annexure-2 letter to the Insurance Company is dated 26.10.1994. By this letter the Insurance company has asked for certain documents from the complainant. The District Forum held that the Insurance Company by Annexure-2 has enquired about certain papers in the year 1994 but as per the case of the complainant he furnished those documents only on 24.4.2000 after about six years. No paper was produced by the complainant that any Surveyor or any person appointed by the Insurance Company has ever examined the alleged accident vehicle and asked him to get it repair. The Insurance Company has denied that it has appointed any Surveyor or has asked the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. Only on 28.4.2002 the complainant disclosed the name of the Surveyor and considering this fact and the abnormal delay made on behalf of the complainant in fulfilling requirements of the Insurance Company the Forum held that entire case of the alleged accident appears to be suspicious and it has not been proved by any legal document and dismissed the complaint.

WE have heard the submission of both the parties and perused the annexures. WE find that complainant''s conduct in this case was full of suspicion and he has not been vigilant in the reply of the Insurance Company or with regard to supply of the necessary papers to alleged accident or direction of the Surveyor to get the accident vehicle repair. The complainant has not disclosed till date the date of accident. This fact is also not mentioned in the Sanha lodged with the local P.S. In the fact and circumstances, we are of the view that District Forum has rightly held that allegation of accident appears to be suspicious and rightly dismissed the complaint. WE do not find any illegality in the impugned order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is hereby confirmed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.