Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/08/1707

NIRMAL KUMAR SONI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSU. CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SH. N. CHOURASIA

05 Apr 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1707 OF 2008

(Arising out of order dated 05.02.2008 passed in C. C. No.461/2007 by District Forum, Satna)

 

NIRMAL KUMAR SONI,

S/O SHRI MOLAI RAM SONI,

R/O GOUSHALA CHOWK, SATNA,

TEHSIL-RAGHURAJ NAGAR, DISTRICT-SATNA (M.P.)                                                              ….       APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

MANAGER,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

BRANCH OFFICE-SATNA (M.P.)                                                                                                  ….       RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :    PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :    MEMBER

        

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Naresh Chourasia, learned counsel for appellant.

Ms. Chitra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                                     O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 05.04. 2019)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna (for short the ‘Forum’) in C.C.No. 461/2007 whereby the complainant’s complaint has been dismissed.

2.                     The case of the complainant is such that he had purchased a Tata Safari bearing registration no.MP-18 C-5121 which was insured with the opposite party for the period commencing from 14.07.2006 to 13.07.2007. On 25.07.2006, the complainant along with his son Rohit Kumar were going from Satna to Amarpatan, when suddenly a buffalo came in front of the vehicle.  Lights, bumper and bonnet of the vehicle got damaged.  The complainant lodged a police complaint in the police station Amarpatan and had intimated the opposite party-insurance company as well.  The complainant subsequently got the vehicle repaired after receiving instructions from the opposite party and incurred expenses of Rs.93,916/-.  The opposite party did not reimburse the expenses borne by the complainant.  The complainant therefore, approached the Forum alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.

3.                     The opposite party-insurance company resisted the complaint stating that upon receiving intimation from the complainant regarding accident, their investigator carried

-2-

out investigation in the matter.  During investigation it was observed that the vehicle had met with an accident on 26.06.2006 when the complainant was returning home, after being discharged from the hospital.  The complainant’s submission that it had met with an accident on 25.07.2006 is contrary to the evidence.  The complainant had purchased this vehicle from Marshal Preece who had earlier got the vehicle insured through ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited.  The previous policy commenced from 30.07.2005 to 29.07.2006.  Thereafter, a policy was obtained from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited from 05.07.2006 to 04.07.2007, which was subsequently cancelled.  It is illegal to obtain two different insurance policies for the same duration.  The complainant had also suppressed this fact while obtaining the existing insurance policy cover.  Since the accident occurred on 26.06.2006 and the current policy was effective from 14.07.2006, the claim of the aforesaid vehicle was beyond the scope of the policy cover.  Hence, the complainant’s claim is not payable.

4.                     Heard. Perused the record.

5.                     Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the Forum has erroneously dismissed the complaint relying on the statements, placed on record by the investigator. He argued that he along with other witnesses had not given any statement to the investigator, which were prepared by the investigator himself. The complainant/appellant had given his treatment sheets to the investigator, wherein it is apparent that the complainant was again admitted in the hospital regarding medical treatment, after the date of discharge i.e. 26.06.2006.  The aforesaid accident happened on 25.07.2006 regarding which the complainant/appellant had also lodged a police complaint, but the Forum had relied only on the investigator’s report and had ignored the police complaint lodged in the matter confirming the date of accident as 25.07.2006.

6.                     Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent argued that the accident of the subject vehicle occurred on 26.06.2006.  Various statements given by the witnesses are annexed on record, on the basis of which the investigator prepared his investigation report. It is clearly stated in the statements, referred above, that the accident had happened on 26.06.2006 when the complainant/appellant was returning home, post his discharge from the hospital, where he was admitted for his treatment. The discharge card available on record clearly suggests the date of admission of Shri Nirmal Kumar Soni (complainant) as

-3-

20.06.2006 and date of discharge as 26.06.2006.  Since the complainant/appellant had obtained the current insurance policy from 14.07.2006, the accident which happened on 26.06.2006 is not payable, as it is beyond the scope of the policy cover. The complainant/appellant has not approached the Forum with clean hands as he tried to mislead the Forum by changing the date of accident to 25.07.2006 with malafide intention.

7.                     As we carefully peruse the investigation report, which is available on record, accompanied with the affidavit of the investigator, we observe that through his detailed investigation, the investigator has mentioned that the complainant’s/appellant’s vehicle met with an accident on 26.06.2006, when he was returning from the hospital, after getting discharged. Various statements annexed as D-3, D-7, D-8 and D-9 support his investigation report. The police complaint lodged by the complainant/appellant in the matter indicating the date of accident to be 25.07.2006 cannot be relied upon, as it does not appear that any investigation was carried out, subsequent to filing of this police complaint and that the police had reached any conclusion in this regard. The complainant/appellant has not been able to lead sufficient evidence in support of his submission.

8.                     Notably, the current policy was effective from 14.07.2006 to 13.07.2007, therefore the date of accident i.e. 26.06.2006 is before the commencement of policy cover.  The complainant’s/appellant’s vehicle was insured under the policy issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited on the date of accident, but the policy was in the name of the previous owner and not in the appellant’s name.  The opposite party/respondent-insurance company cannot be held negligent and deficient in service in not allowing the complainant’s/appellant’s claim since the insurance policy issued by them commenced after the accident had taken place.

9.                     In wake of the above discussion, we reach a conclusion that the complainant/appellant does not deserve any relief. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld.  This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

           (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)                  (DR. MONIKA MALIK)

                           PRESIDENT                                                    MEMBER