Back
UTTARANCHAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President
& Mr. Surendra Kumar, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.—Appellant
versus
PRATAP SINGH BARGLEY—Respondent
Appeal No. 372 of 2003—Decided on 10.6.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
The duty of the insurance company to provide coverage as per the terms of the policy and the importance of evidence in determining liability for the claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147] - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147, which mandates the requirement of insurance against third party risks. The court emphasized the duty of the insurance company to provide coverage as per the terms of the policy and highlighted the importance of evidence in determining liability for the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was damaged due to an accident, and the insurance company repudiated the claim citing that the loss was not covered under the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to disbelieve the complainant's contention of the accident due to brake failure, and the insurance company was deficient in its service in repudiating the claim.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim based on the alleged cause of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of material evidence and supporting documents, the insurance company's decision to repudiate the claim was unjustified.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision of the lower forum in favor of the complainant.
Mr. Surendra Kumar, Member—This is an appeal against the order dated 6.8.1998 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 14,686.88 (Rupees fourteen thousand six hundred eighty-six and eighty-eight paise) along with interest @ 12% from 15.9.1992 till the date of actual payment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Sh. Pratap Singh Bargley lodged a complaint with the allegations that he is the owner of vehicle No. UAB/4007 and the vehicle is insured with the opposite party, Insurance Company. The complainant alleged that on 15.9.1991 his vehicle was coming from Sitarganj to Haldwani. Unfortunately due to coming of animal in front of the vehicle and due to failure of the brakes, the vehicle went out of control, due to which the vehicle fell down in the Nala and because of heavy flow of water his vehicle was damaged. The report was lodged in Thana Chorgalia the same day. He made an estimate of the damaged vehicle, which came to Rs. 16,186/- (Rupees sixteen thousand one hundred eighty-six). He lodged his claim with the Insurance Company. He alleged that opposite party vide its letters dated 6.3.1992 and 30.6.1992 informed him that the vehicle was damaged due to flood and the vehicle in question was not insured in respect of loss due to flood, therefore, his claim has been repudiated.
3. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the vehicle was damaged due to flood, which loss was not covered under the policy.
4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the learned Forum allowed the complaint. Against which order the present appeal has been filed.
5. Notice was issued to the opposite party. It did not return unserved. It is presumed to have been served. Therefore the appeal was heard ex parte.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and gone through the records. The only question is that whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in repudiating the claim of the complainant or not? The insurance is admitted. The information of the alleged accident is also admitted. On 17.9.1992, the complainant again informed the Insurance Company that when his vehicle was coming from Sitarganj to Haldwani, in Shernala in process of saving animals and due to brake failure, his vehicle went out of control and fell down in Khud, due to which his vehicle was badly damaged.
7. The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor investigated the vehicle and after investigation, he assessed the loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 14,686.88 (Rupees fourteen thousand six hundred eighty-six and eighty-eight paise). In his report, Sh. Denesh Kumar Saxena in heading Labour Charges has mentioned labour charges for brake overhauling and also chassis front cross member repairing. The labour charges shown in the survey report for brake overhauling and chassis front cross member repairing shows that the brake of the vehicle was not working properly and repairing of chassis from cross member is also caused due to some type of jerk which is only possible when it had some problem. Surveyor Sh. Saxena in his report has also mentioned the name of the driver Sh. Khim Singh and has also mentioned in driving licence number which was valid up to 10.10.1993 and in details of passengers has written that there were 10 persons including driver and conductor in the said bus at the time of incident. There is no affidavit or statement of driver Sh. Khim Singh or conductor or even the other passengers said to be travelling in the said bus at the time of accident. The Surveyor did not record the statement of any of the passengers travelling in the bus that the accident took place only due to flood and there was no brake failure to avoid accident with cattles. In absence of such material evidence of the driver and passengers, the Insurance Company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant
