Appeal No.1488/06

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V.Mangej Singh


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President

Mrs. Vimla Sethiya-Member


Shri Virendra Agarwal,counsel for the appellant

None for the respondent




Date of judgement: 30.4.2009


This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company which was op before the District Forum,Bikaner against the order dated 11.7.06 passed by the District Forum,Bikaner in complaint no.334/05,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellant insurance company in the manner that the appellant insurance company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.83,951/-, the amount as assessed by the surveyor and further to pay Rs.500/- as amount of cost of litigation and Rs.500/- as amount of compensation for mental agony and if the above amount was not paid within one month the complainant respondent would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a.


It arises in the following circumstances:


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellant insurance company before the District Forum,Bikaner on 13.12.05 interalia stating that his truck bearing registration no.RJ.07/ G.5017 was got insured with the appellant

2


insurance company for the period 30.4.04 to 29.4.05 for a sum of Rs.7 lacs. It was further stated in the complaint that the said truck had met with an accident on 9.6.04 near Ludhiana chunki and as a result of which the truck in question was damaged and informtion of the incident was given by the complainant respondent to the office of the appellant insurance company and as per the case of the complainant respondent a loss of Rs.1,65,000/- was assessed, but that claim was repudiated by the appellant insurance company through letter dated 28.9.04 on the ground that the builty and weigh bridge slip in question were found forged one and since the complainant respondent was guilty of committing breach of trust on the principle of utmost good faith,therefore, the present complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellant insurance company on 13.2.06 before the District Forum,Bikaner and in the reply it was stated that the claim was rightly repudiated through letter dated 28.9.04 and it was also wrong to say that the complainant respondent had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/- and further the surveyor appointed by the appellant insurance company Shri Laxmi Narain Vyas in his report dated 15.7.04 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89952/- minus salvage value of Rs.6000/- and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed as the claim was rightly repudiated.


The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 11.7.06 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that the repudiation of the claim by the appellant insurance company was not justified as the accident had taken place and the amount as assessed by the surveyor was ordered to be paid by the appellant insurance company to the complainant respondent.

3

Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company.


In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that in para no.11 of the complaint, the complainant respondent had specifically stated that in case it was found that the complainant respondent had committed violation of the terms and conditions of the policy,claim be treated as sub standard and since in the present case as per the report of Shri Mahender Lokwani,the investigator who was appointed for making verification of the G.R and since he had come to the conclusion that the GR and weigh bridge slip produced by the complainant respondent were forged one,therefore,the fact that the complainant respondent had violated the terms and conditions of the policy is well established and thus at the most claim be treated as sub standard and decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs.83951/- was not justified and to that extent,appeal be allowed.


We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and perused the record.


It may be stated here that Shri Mahender Lokwani in his report dated 7.9.04 had come to the following conclusion:


“So after considering above points however we can not say that how much material was loaded in the vehicle but it is clear that produced GR & weigh bridge slip are not genuine are false. Insured is hiding real facts.”


A bare perusal of the above report clearly reveals that at the time of accident the GR & weigh bridge slip were forged one and running the truck with forged slips at the time of accident would

4


certainly amount breach of the condition of the policy and for that it would be proper and just if the claim be treated as sub standard.


For reasons as stated above,this Commission is of the veiw that the claim of the complainant respondent should have been treated as sub standard and decreeing the claim for the full amount was not justified and thus the complainant respondent is entitled to 75% amount of Rs.83,951/- that comes to Rs.62,963/-. To the above extent,this appeal deserves to be allowed.


The result is that this appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is allowed partly in the manner that the appellant insurance company would pay a sum of Rs.62,963/- in place of Rs.83,951/- and to that extent,the impugned order dated 11.7.06 passed by the District Forum,Bikaner be treated as modified. Rest order is maintained.




Member President