AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE case of the petitioners/complainants is as follows. The petitioners got their tractor insured from The Oriental Insurance Company, OP/Respondent which was valid from 29.08.2006 to 28.08.2007. When the driver was driving the tractor from village Harna to village Hindoli, suddenly 7 -8 people came in a jeep and they forcibly took away the possession of the vehicle representing that since the installments of the tractor were pending and they were taking such step on behalf of the creditor. The driver was directed to pay the pending installments at Bundi and take back the tractor. The driver gave this information to the complainants on 28.08.2007 which was a holiday on account of Raksha Bandhan. On 29.08.2007, the complainants went to Bundi Branch of Bank of Baroda where it transpired that no one was sent by the Bank to take the tractor. The incident was, thereafter, reported to the police on 01.09.2007. The Insurance Company was informed of the incident on 22.10.2007.
THE Insurance Company investigated the matter and it came to light that the event had actually occurred on 29.08.2007. The complainants'' insurance had expired on 28.08.2007. Consequently, the complainants gave false date of 27.08.2007 in order to make the claim before the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company declined their claim.
AFTER the claim of the petitioner was repudiated, a complaint was lodged with the District Forum Bundi. The District Forum allowed the complaint. It held that the claim of the complainants appears to be eligible for compensation. It merely directed that respondent Insurance Company to act in accordance with the rules and shall pass the claim of the complainants within three months. Aggrieved by this decision, both the complainants and Insurance Company filed two separate appeals. The petitioners filed appeal on the ground that no compensation for mental harassment, interest or insured value in the said order was granted. The Insurance Company called into question the order rendered by the District Forum. The State Forum accepted the appeal filed by the insurance company and ordered that under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the complainants had become infructuous and dismissed the same.
WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. She has invited our attention towards the judgment of this court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors., 2012 2 CPJ 102 ; NVC Group Farms rep. by its Managing Partner Sri N. V. Chowdary S/o Varadaiah and Ors. Vs. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. decided by this Commission on 24.05.2010 by the bench headed by justice R. C. Jain; Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram and Ors., 1974 AIR(SC) 471 and Mrs. D.P. Divakar Vs. Chairman/Personal Managing Director, Kudremukh Iron and Ore Company Ltd., 1996 ACJ 7. She contented that complainants had explained the delay in lodging the FIR and the delay in giving information to the insurance company is not fatal.
ALL these arguments are devoid of merits. The above said authorities are not applicable to the instant case. There is a delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR. An integument of suspicion envelops the entire case of the complainants. The possibility that the incident took place on 29.08.2007 instead of 28.08.2007 cannot be ruled out. The case of the complainants must stand on its own legs. It is the complainants and nobody else who is to carry the ball in proving their case. Had the FIR been lodged immediately the case of the complainant to this extent would have proved. The delay in lodging the report casts a flim of doubt over the bonafides of complainants. This aspect is very significant, which destroys the case of the complainants'' root and branch.
IT is also difficult to believe as to why did the driver withhold this information from the complainants for one full day. He should have informed the complainants on the phone. He could have rushed to the complainants on the same very day. His version is that a jeep carrying 7 -8 people came to forcibly possess the vehicle. He should have noted the number of the jeep. The story of the complainants is made out of whole cloth. Even if the story of the complainants is assumed to be believed, why there was delay of 4 days from 29.08.2007 to 01.09.2007. No explanation is coming to this extent. On day of Raksha Bandhan, there is no holiday for the banks and Insurance Company or the police.
AGAIN the insurance company was informed about this incident on 22.10.2007 i.e. nearly about 2 months from the date of the incident. The intimation should have been given to the OP immediately so that they could have inspected the case promptly.
IN the result, we see no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed in limine.