KIRPA RAM vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 21. 2. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed as meritless.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) bought Janta Personal Accident insurance Policy vide cover note No. CH264787 Annexure C-1 from the respondent by making payment of Rs. 300 effective from 29. 9. 1998 to 28. 9. 2010. It was averred that appellant (complainant) left his house from Mauli Jagran for distributing Jagran cards and when after distributing cards at Ram Darbar, he was returning to his house, then near Hallomajra Chowk a Tata Sumo at a high speed from behind struck against his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR01-D-9086 and caused him injuries. He was taken to Government Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh for treatment by Mr. Surinder and others and was treated there. However, no FIR was registered against the driver of Tata Sumo as he was won over by the police and only DDR No. 40 dated 23. 3. 2004 was registered in Police Station, Sector-31, Chandigarh. After recovery, complaint was filed to the Illaqa Magistrate, Chandigarh and also gave information to the respondent vide letter dated 12. 10. 2004 vide Annexure C-3 but despite reminders and legal notice, the claim was not paid to him.

Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

RESPONDENT contested the complaint and stated that the appellant entered into a compromise with the driver of Tata Sumo and as such no further action was taken by the police, so, the complaint should be dismissed. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum held that there was no merit in the complaint and as such same was dismissed.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal. We have heard Counsel for appellant Sh. P. K. Kukreja and carefully gone through the file. A perusal of DDR Annexure C-2 which appellant (complainant) had lodged with the police shows that accident had taken place just by chance and nobody was at fault. However, thereafter in his affidavit dated 12. 9. 2005 in para-3, the appellant stated that Tata Sumo came at a very high speed from behind and struck against his motor cycle and as such the accident took place. The plea taken in the affidavit is contrary to the DDR which was first version. It appears that appellant had compromised with the driver of Tata Sumo but later on he backed out from the compromise and filed the present complaint.

THE accident took place on 23. 3. 2004 but the appellant gave information of the said accident to the Insurance Company on 12. 10. 2004 vide letter dated Annexure C-3. It is not explained as to why information was not given by the appellant for 7 months. It only shows that he reconciled with the accident and alleged injuries as accident had not taken place due to fault of Tata Sumo driver. Perhaps he himself might be at fault and for this reason, he did not press for FIR. Moreover, in the DDR the appellant stated that bone of his leg had been broken, but no certificate of doctor has been produced that bone of his leg had been broken and he had become permanent disabled. Thus, it has rightly been held by the District Consumer Forum that claim of appellant was not genuine.

WE concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Hence, it is dismissed in limine. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.