AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 28.11.2016 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum came to be dismissed on merits. Since there is a delay of about four months in filing the revision petition, an application seeking condonation of the said delay has also been filed.
The complainant owned a truck, bearing registration No. BRG-9199, which he had got insured with the petitioner company. The said truck was allegedly damaged due to fire on 26.6.1986, during the subsistence of the insurance policy. A complaint was filed by the complainant / respondent before the concerned District Forum, being Consumer Complaint No. 803 of 1994, giving the number of the vehicle as BRQ-9199, wherein vide order dated 19.12.1995, the petitioner was directed to settle the claim. Since the claim was not settled, Adjudication Case of 7 of 1996 was filed by the complainant against the petitioner. It transpired at that stage that in the intimation given to the petitioner, the complainant had given the number of the truck as BRQ-9199 instead of BRG-9199. In an appeal being Appeal No. 278 of 2000 preferred by the petitioner, the State Commission directed the complainant / respondent to file a fresh complaint, giving correct number of the vehicle. A fresh complaint was thereupon filed by the complainant / respondent. The complaint being CC No. 81 of 2008 was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that it was barred by limitation and no papers in respect of the damaged vehicle had been filed in the previous complaint.
It was further stated in the written version filed by the insurer before the concerned District Forum that the claim was investigated by the then Assistant Administrative Officer who submitted a report pointing out several discrepancies in the claim, including the existence of the complainant. Thereupon the competent authority authorized repudiation of the claim under communication dated 01.2.1989 enclosing the copies of the office notings Annexure VI to the written version.
The District Forum vide its order dated 14.3.2009, having allowed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner company vide impugned order dated 28.11.2016.
It is not in dispute that truck bearing registration No.BRG-9199 was duly insured with the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid truck was owned by the complainant / respondent Harinandan Prasad. This is also not in dispute that the aforesaid truck had got damaged due to fire on 26.6.1986 i.e. more than thirty years ago. Though, the complainant / respondent wrongly gave the number of the truck as BRQ-9199 instead of BRG-9199, the aforesaid obviously was a clerical error since BRQ-9199 was a Fiat Car and not a truck. The petitioner company ought to have pointed this out to the complainant and asked him to give correct number of the truck which otherwise was available in its record, the insurance policy having been issued by it. Therefore, the rejection of the claim on account of the complainant giving a wrong registration number of the truck cannot be justified.
Coming to the plea that the second complaint was barred by limitation, I find that the State Commission vide order dated 31.12.2007, specifically permitted the complainant to file a fresh complaint. The fresh complaint was filed in the year 2008, within a few months of the aforesaid liberty granted by the State Commission. The complaint therefore cannot be said to be barred by limitation since order of the State Commission granting liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint was never challenged by the petitioner company before a higher Forum.
The claim seems to have been rejected on the ground that neither complaint nor the person from whom the truck was purchased by him met the investigator. The aforesaid factor in my view could not have been a ground to repudiate the claim. If the petitioner had any doubt with respect to the identity of the complainant he could have been asked to appear before a responsible officer of the insurer, along with documents evidencing his identity. No such course of action was adopted by the insurer. In this regard, the District Forum also noticed that the investigator did not try to contact the complainant and the transferor of the vehicle at their permanent address. The investigator also noted that after the accident the truck had been surrendered to the District Transport Officer, Patna on 01.7.1986. The aforesaid transfer could not have been a ground for rejecting the claim since there is no prohibition in law in transfer of an accidental vehicle.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no jurisdictional error or perversity in the orders passed by the fora below warranting interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the claim is more than thirty years old. However, considering the report of the investigator, the following supplementary directions are issued and to ensure that a fraudulent claim is not paid: (i) The complainant / respondent shall appear personally before the concerned Divisional Manager of the insurer, alongwith documents evidencing his identity and the payment in terms of the orders passed by the fora below shall be made only on the Divisional Manager confirming the identity of the complainant / insured;
(ii) The original registration certificate of the insured truck shall be produced by the complainant / respondent before the concerned Divisional Manager of the insurer, who will be entitled to verify the genuineness of the documents from the concerned office and the payment in terms of the orders passed by the fora below shall be made only if the said registration certificate is found to be genuine and the insured vehicle is found to be transferred in the name of the complainant/respondent before the date of the alleged accident by fire.
(iii) The Divisional Manager of the insurer will be entitled to compare the engine number and chassis number of the insured vehicle as given in the insurance policy with the engine number and chassis number as given in the registration certificate and the payment in terms of the orders passed by the fora below shall be made only if the engine number and chassis number in the insurance policy and the registration certificate fully tally with each other.
(iv) If the complainant complies with the aforesaid directions and the Divisional Manager of the insurer is satisfied in terms of the directions given hereinabove, the payment shall be made directly in the bank account of the complainant / insured. The said bank account should have been opened on or before the date on which the second complaint was instituted before the District Forum in the year 2008.