Point of Law : Contention of fabrication of documents (Invoice no. 23) is not related to the damage caused to the vehicle and the insurance claim.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by way of an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned judgment and award dated 28.11.2022 (Ann.13) passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in PLA Case No. 178/2021 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petition filed by the respondent-application u/s 22 C of the Act may kindly be dismissed.

Any other order which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner company. The cost be also awarded in favour of the petitioner company.”

2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner-Company issued a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy to the respondent/applicant in respect of goods carrying commercial vehicle bearing registration no. RJ-07-GC-7148. The said policy was to remain effective for the period from 06.03.2020 to 05.03.2021, and the total sum insured under the policy was Rs. 24,00,000/-. The respondent-applicant was to be indemnified in respect of any damage to the insured vehicle during the continuance of the said insurance policy.

2.1. On 07.06.2020, the petitioner-Company was informed by the respondent-applicant that when the vehicle was at the outer ring road of Shahdara-Delhi road, it caught fire on account of short circuit, as a result whereof its front portion was badly damaged. Upon receiving such information, the petitioner-Company immediately appointed Authorized Surveyor and Assessor M/s. Innovative Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as the “Spot Surveyor”) for the spot survey.

2.1.1. Immediately thereafter, the Spot Surveyor reached the place of the incident, inspected the site as well as the insured vehicle, and submitted spot inspection report dated 09.06.2020 before the petitioner-Company. It was observed therein that the vehicle was fully loaded with bags of powder around 1 feet above the height of the body of the vehicle.

2.2. Subsequently, another Authorized Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Rakesh Soni (hereinafter referred as the “Final Surveyor”) was appointed for the final survey. The Final Survey Report, after the usual procedure, was submitted on 15.10.2020, whereby a total loss of Rs. 10,67,658/- was assessed, subject to coverage under the policy. In the said report, it was pointed out that the insured did not provide dharamkanta (weighment) receipt, so as to enable due verification about the load being carried in the vehicle at the relevant time. Other discrepancies were also pointed out in regard to the genuineness of the G.R. No. 1042 dated 06.06.2020 and the invoice no. 23 of M/s Devashish Clay Industries.

2.3. Since before final settlement of the claim, the aforementioned issues needed to be thoroughly investigated, therefore, the petitioner-Company appointed Sh. Rajesh Yadav as Investigator (hereinafter referred as “Investigator”) to investigate into the genuineness of the aforesaid G.R. and the invoice. The investigator accordingly, submitted his report dated 09.11.2020, pointing out that the invoice and G.R. were fake and fabricated.

2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company issued registered notices dated 22.12.2020 and 04.01.2021 to the respondent/applicant, calling upon him to submit his explanation on the issue of fabricated documents; in response whereof, the respondent/applicant, through his Advocate, sent a legal notice to the petitioner-Company on 01.03.2021.The respondent/applicant’s claim was repudiated by the petitioner-Company, and the reasons, in brief, for the same, were communicated vide letter dated 09.03.2021.

2.5. Aggrieved by the repudiation of claim, the respondent/applicant filed an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner; reply whereto was filed by the petitioner-Company,