Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Brar,
President & Mr. C.P. Budhiraja, Member
PARTAP RANA—Appellant
versus
MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.—Respondent
Appeal No. 1342 of 2000—Decided on 13.5.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.S. Saini, Advocate.
The timing of an accident and the validity of an insurance policy are crucial factors in determining the admissibility of an insurance claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance - [Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64VB] - The court discussed the evidence presented by both parties regarding the timing of the car accident and the validity of the insurance policy. It highlighted the inconsistencies in the complainant's version of events and relied on witness statements and police reports to conclude that the accident occurred after the insurance policy had expired. The court upheld the rejection of the insurance claim based on the timing of the accident and the expired policy.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's car was insured, and an accident occurred. The insurance claim was rejected based on the timing of the accident and the validity of the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred after the insurance policy had expired, based on witness statements and police reports.
Issues: Validity of the insurance claim based on the timing of the accident and the expiration of the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on witness statements and police reports to determine the timing of the accident and upheld the rejection of the insurance claim due to the expired policy.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the rejection of the insurance claim was upheld.
Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—It is an appeal against the order dated 18.10.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called the District Forum).
2. The appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had got the car insured from the respondent-O.P. (hereinafter called the O.P.) on 4.2.1998 for a sum of Rs. 5,17,703.80 p. According to the complainant the accident of the car took place on 3.2.1999 at 9.30 p.m. while according to the O.P. the accident took place on 4.2.1999 at 3.00 a.m. It was in these circumstances that the claim of the claimant was repudiated as there was no insurance of the car at the time of the accident.
3. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case District Forum dismissed the complaint by holding that it is proved on record that accident took place on 4.2.1999 at 3.00 a.m. and not on 3.2.1999 at 9.30 p.m.
4. Hence this appeal.
5. We have heard the Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the detailed order of the District Forum as well as the record of the case with the help of the Counsel. We would like to reproduce the order of the District Forum vide which the complaint was dismissed and it was held that the accident had taken place on 4.2.1999 at 3.00 a.m. and not on 3.2.1999 at 9.30 p.m.:
“Arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties are heard. The point in controversy is as to if the accident in which the car was got burnt took place at 9.30 p.m. on 3.2.1999 or the same occurred on 4.2.1999 on 3.00 a.m.? The learned Counsel for the complainant has urged that ocular evidence in the form of the statements of the complainant and his driver Rakesh Kumar supported by D.D.R No. 7 dated 4.2.1999 of Police Station, Dasuya, is quite sufficient to prove that the accident had taken place on 3.2.1999 at 9.30 p.m. He has further urged that the evidence produced by the opposite party is not admissible and has no credibility. The learned Counsel for the opposite party has maintained that the version of the complainant is inconsistent as in the complaint it was positively pleaded that the complainant and his driver were going back to Mukerian after giving programme by the complainant at Jalandhar he being Punjabi Pop Singer when on the way at 9.30 p.m. the accident took place. Same are the affidavits of the complainant and his driver. Investigation was conducted by Sh. B.S. Sharma who was appointed as Investigator by National Insurance Company. His affidavit is Ex. O.1. He has stated on oath that the complainant and his driver were joined in the investigation and their statements were correctly recorded. The opposite party has relied upon their statements which have been tendered in evidence along with the report of Sh. B.S. Sharma. The question was put by the investigator to the complainant as to if he was going back to Mukerian after giving some programme at Jalandhar which was denied by him. Rather, he tried to explain that this was something which could be in the knowledge of his driver. Sh. Rakesh Kumar in his statement on this point stated that they had not gone to Jalandhar in connection with any programme. Thus, the version of the complainant as to if on that day he had any programme at Jalandhar is inconsistent. It appears as the complainant has tried to change this version of programme because in that situation accident would not have taken place at 9.30 p.m. In case, there was some programme in which the complainant had participated he being pop singer he was not expected to have himself relieved so early as to be at Dasuya at 9.30 p.m. Further, the journey in-between Jalandhar and Dasuya is not less than of one hour. As such, the complainant became aware that his version that he had reached Dasuya at 9.30 p.m. after giving programme at Jalandhar was not true and probable and, therefore, he withdrew the same.
The complainant has relied upon copy of the DDR No. 7 dated 4.2.1999 of Polic
