Back
THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President; Sh. B.L. Anand, Member
SUSHILA GAUTAM—Complainant
versus
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.—O.P.
C-305/1991—Decided on 8.7.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the O.P. :Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate.
An insurance claim must be supported by credible evidence and any attempt to defraud the insurance company through false or misleading claims will not be tolerated.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - THEFT CLAIM - REJECTION - FRAUDULENT CLAIM - CONSPIRACY - NO THEFT - DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT WITH COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant claimed insurance for her stolen truck. The insurance company rejected the claim alleging a fraudulent conspiracy and no actual theft.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's statements and evidence, including suppression of material facts in the original complaint. The court concluded that the complainant had not come up with clean hands and had made a false claim to defraud the insurance company.
Issues: Whether the complainant's claim for insurance was genuine or a fraudulent attempt to deceive the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim of theft and that the inconsistencies and contradictions in her statements raised doubts about the authenticity of the claim. The court also found that the complainant had suppressed material facts in the original complaint, which further weakened her case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint with costs, imposing a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the insurance company by the complainant.
Mr. B.L. Anand, Member— 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 b
