Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.C. Vyas, President, Veena Misra and V.K. Patil, Members
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
MADHURI SHARMA - Respondent
Appeal No. 412 of 2007
Decided on : 16-08-2007
Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient and credible evidence to prove the circumstances surrounding an insurance claim, such as the use of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - The court upheld the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the vehicle was used for hiring at the time of the accident. The court also dismissed the argument that the driver's license was for light motor vehicles and not for commercial purposes, stating that there was no evidence to support this claim.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant insured a vehicle as a private car, which was later involved in a road accident. The insurance company repudiated the claim, alleging that the vehicle was being used for hiring at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the vehicle was used for hiring at the time of the accident. It also dismissed the argument regarding the driver's license, stating that there was no evidence to support the claim that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the vehicle was used for hiring at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the document presented as the statement of a witness was not credible, and there was no other evidence to support the claim that the vehicle was used for hiring. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support the claim that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
ORDER
S.C. Vyas, President - This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 406 of 2006, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent was allowed and an award of Rs. 18,899 along with interest and compensation was passed.
2. Short facts of the case are that a Mahindra Marshal Jeep registration No. CG04/B-3254 was insured by the appellant as a private car and the period of insurance was from 11.3.2006 to 10.3.2007. On 10.6.2006 when the vehicle was going from Dhamtari road to Sejbahar, near Khilora it met a road accident and was damaged. Because of this damage compensation was claimed by the respondent/complainant from the Insurance Company. A Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who assessed the loss at Rs. 18,899 but at the same time he expressed an opinion that at the time of incident the vehicle might be in used as a hired vehicle and, therefore, the contract of insurance was breached by the complainant himself. In these circumstances the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant. Then, the complainant approached the District Forum from where the impugned order has been passed.
3. The only ground which has been pressed by learned Counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that learned District Forum has wrongly turned down the plea of the Insurance Company when it was duly proved that the vehicle was used for the purpose of hiring at the relevant time and was given to some one for carrying marriage party for Rs. 700. In this regard he has drawn attention of this Commission towards statement of Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav and to the report of the Surveyor.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by learned District Forum and submitted that there was in fact no evidence to prove that the vehicle was used for the purpose of hiring.
5. We have considered arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned District Forum has rightly held that the document which is being said as the statement of Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav is not at all statement of that person because it does not bear either his signature or thumb impression and as per its contents it has been written by some one else namely Rajesh Kumar saying that he is brother of Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav and also saying that Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav is unable to sign the document. The document itself shows that Dinesh Kumar suffered some injury on his left hand but there in nothing to show that there was any injury on his right hand. There is no evidence to show that Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav use only his left hand for writing. There is also no evidence to show that he use to sing or to put thumb impression. Considering all these aspects it is difficult to held that this document is in fact statement of Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav. If for the sake of arguments it is presumed that he gave statement that the vehicle has been used for hire, even then report of the Surveyor itself contained statement of its rebuttal because Surveyor has stated that along with statement of Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav, he has recorded statement of driver Vijay Kumar and the occupants Kamlesh Kumar Dubey and Ravinder Shukla. It has been stated in Para 6 that none of the others have said that the vehicle was hired. This portion of the Surveyor's report is sufficient to rebut the so called statement of Dinesh Kumar Vaishnav and, therefore, in fact there remains nothing on record, on the basis of which, this finding can be arrived at that the vehicle was hired.
7. Secondly, learned Counsel for the appellant has also tried to argue that driving licence of the Driver was for the purpose of driving Light Motor Vehicle, whereas the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, but this arguments has also got no force, because there is no evidence that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose.
8. Lastly, Mr.
