Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Gurdev Singh, President and Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
HIMMAT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1090 of 2009
Decided on : 22-03-2013
Mr. Yash Paul Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate, for the Respondent
The court upheld the repudiation of the insurance claim based on false information provided by the complainant, highlighting the importance of accurate and truthful disclosure in insurance claims.
Headnote:
Insurance - Car Insurance - 231110/31/2009/4974 - The court discussed the evidence and found that the car was being driven by Pawan Kumar at the time of the accident, not by the complainant's son. The court upheld the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company based on the false information provided by the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's car was involved in an accident, and the insurance claim was repudiated by the insurance company based on false information provided by the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the car was being driven by Pawan Kumar at the time of the accident, not by the complainant's son, and upheld the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company.
Issues: Misrepresentation of facts in the insurance claim, determination of the driver at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence, including hospital certificates and the claim form, to determine that the car was being driven by Pawan Kumar at the time of the accident, and not by the complainant's son. The false information provided by the complainant led to the repudiation of the claim.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the repudiation of the insurance claim. No costs were awarded.
ORDER
Gurdev Singh, President - The appellant/complainant, Himmat Singh, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "District Forum") dismissing his complaint with costs of Rs. 3,000, has preferred the present appeal. He averred in his complaint that he got his car make Tata Indigo bearing registration No. PB-01-0882 (in short "the car") comprehensively insured from the OP and at that time insurance policy No. 231110/31/2009/4974 was issued which was for the period 6.9.2008 to 5.9.2009 and he paid a premium of Rs. 16,926, vide cheque, which was duly got encashed by the OP. On 9.10.2008 the car was taken on hire by army officer Lt. Col. Sunil Nayyar for visiting Ratno Chak (Jammu and Kashmir). While coming back on 12.10.2008 and when the same was being driven by his son, it met with an accident near Saila Khurd, when a stray cattle suddenly appeared in front of the car and while saving that cattle another car bearing No. PB-08-AB-2151 banged in the car resulting heavy damage and loss thereto. All the occupants of the car received the injuries. His son approached the Police Post at Saila Khurd and tried to lodge the complaint but the intention of police authorities was to make the parties to reach at amicable compromise and, as such, FIR was not recorded by it and it waited upto 22.10.2008. On 13.10.2008 he approached the OP for getting the damaged vehicle surveyed and disclosed that the car was lying at Saila Khurd. On 22.10.2008 Er. Sham Sunder Sharma accompanied him to the spot and surveyed the damaged car and took the photographs. He approached M/s. Lucky Crane Services and got the car removed to M/s. Motorways, Industrial Area, Panchkula. Mr. Rajesh Wadhawan was deputed as surveyor by the OP for assessing the loss, who visited M/s. Motorways on 24.10.2008 and 25.10.2008 and took the photographs and also collected the required documents from him. After the car was repaired, he again approached the OP on 27.1.2009 for getting the repaired car re-inspected and on his request the same Surveyor was deputed for inspecting the car. When he approached the OP for reimbursement of payment of his claim of the damaged car, he was not informed that the investigator was deputed to investigate the claim case and he reported that at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by one Pawan Kumar and not by his son Harinder Singh. He does not know any such Pawan Kumar and it has wrongly been reported by the Investigator that the car at the time of accident was being driven by such Pawan Kumar. He incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,06,708 on the repairs of the damaged car and is entitled to recover that amount from the OP besides Rs. 50,000 as compensation for the mental harassment and agony and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.
2. After the admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP who filed written reply. Denying the contentions of the complainant, it averred that the car was being driven by one Pawan Kumar and not by the son of the complainant at the time of accident. The matter was not reported to the police deliberately/intentionally as the complainant wanted to plant his son as driver in place of Pawan Kumar and that fact is very much clear from the statements made in the claim form. The column meant for the number of passengers carried in the car was left blank and it was also mentioned therein that the driver and the occupants thereof were not injured whereas Lt. Col. Sunil Nayyar, who was travelling in the car, had fracture of the arm. The car was being driven by Pawan Kumar and son of Sunil Nayyar, namely, Ankush Nayyar was also accompanying the same and had also received the injuries for which they were admitted in Bhagat Hari Singh Charitable Hospital. The complainant in support of his false version got the report lodged with the police after 10 days of the accident. The complainant gave false information by concealing the name of
