Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 1110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK SIBAL, DEEPAK MANCHANDA, JJ.
Sanjeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
LPA-1060 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2024
Mr. Rakesh Kaundal, Advocate; For the Appellant
Claims for insurance damages must be supported by consistent evidence; contradictions in the claimant's account can lead to repudiation of the claim.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1938 - Claim for damages - The appellant's claim for damages was repudiated by the insurance company due to contradictions regarding the identity of the driver at the time of the accident - The Lok Adalat awarded compensation which was later set aside by the learned Single Judge due to material contradictions in the appellant's claim. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 8)
(B) Evidence - Contradictions in testimony - The court emphasized the importance of consistent testimony in establishing claims, noting that the appellant provided three different accounts of who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. (Paras 5, 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's car was involved in an accident, leading to a claim for damages against the insurance company, which was initially awarded by the Lok Adalat but later challenged due to inconsistencies in the appellant's statements regarding the driver.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge found that the Lok Adalat overlooked material contradictions in the appellant's claim, leading to the setting aside of the award.
Issues: The main issues included the identity of the driver at the time of the accident and the validity of the appellant's claim based on contradictory statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that due to the unresolved contradictions regarding the driver and the cause of the accident, the Lok Adalat's acceptance of the claim was unjustified.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Deepak Sibal, J. (Oral)
Through the instant intra court appeal challenge is made to the judgment dated 29.01.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-insurance company through which petition the respondent-insurance company had challenged the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Kurukshetra (for short, the Lok Adalat).
2. The appellant owned a car bearing registration No.HR-78A-6326. The car was insured with the respondent-insurance company. On 29.10.2016 the car met with an accident. As per the appellant the said accident took place on account of sudden appearance of a stray animal (Nil Gai) in front of the car. The said accident resulted in the car suffering total damage. Intimation of the accident was given to the respondent-insurance company. A surveyor appointed by the respondent-insurance company assessed the damage to the car on the basis whereof the appellant made a claim to the respondent-insurance company which was repudiated on the ground that the car in question, at the time of the accident, as claimed by the appellant, was not being driven by Mahavir Singh. The repudiation of the appellant's claim was challenged before the Lok Adalat. On being put to notice, the respondent-insurance company appeared before the Lok Adalat and filed its objections which included the different versions given by the appellant as to who, at the time of the accident, was driving the car. When efforts made for an amicable resolution of the dispute proved futile the appellant's claim was adjudicated upon by the Lok Adalat resulting in the issuance of directions to the respondent-insurance company to pay to the appellant Rs.5,02,207/- alongwith litigation expenses and interest at the rate of 7% per annum.
3. Through filing of a writ petition the respondent-insurance company challenged the Lok Adalat's award. Several grounds were taken by the respondent-insurance company which included contradictions in the claim made by the appellant with regard to the person driving the car at the time of the accident. A learned Single Judge of this Court examined the evidence led by the parties before the Lok Adalat and was of the view that there were material contradictions in the appellant's claim which had been overlooked by the Lok Adalat. Resultantly, the award of the Lok Adalat was set aside. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of challenge through the instant intra court appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard.
5. In the claim made by the appellant he had stated that at the time of the accident the car in question was being driven by Mahavir Singh whereas at a later stage in his affidavit dated 03.12.2016, which had also been filed with the respondent-insurance company, the appellant claimed that at the time of the accident it is he who was driving the vehicle. However, at the time when the matter was being investigated by the respondent-insurance company, Satish Kumar, who is the appellant's brother, got recorded his statement that at the time of the accident it was he who was driving the vehicle in question. Thus, three different versions came to the fore and all these versions were at the behest of either the appellant or his family members.
6. In the light of the afore contradictions and in the absence of any further evidence led by the appellant in this regard it became virtually impossible for the respondent-insurance company to determine as to who, at the time of the accident, was driving the car. Resultantly, it could not be found out as to whether at the time of the accident the driver of the car was holder of a valid driving licence.
7. There were contradictions on the record also with regard to the extent of damage to the car and the reason for such damage. As per the surveyor damage had been caused by the crane when the car was transported from the accident site to the workshop. The surv
