United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs DARSHAN LAL GUPTA

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, Camp at Solan dated 29.9.1999. By the said order, complaint of the respondent has been accepted and the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to indemnify him to the tune of Rs. 19,702/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.5.1996 till the date of payment alongwith costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order. The findings contained therein are that the sole objection raised before the District Forum on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company was that it sought to repudiate the claim of the respondent on the ground that the vehicle, i.e. truck bearing Registration No. HPA-1470 which met with an accident, giving rise to the claim of the respondent, its owner, was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The name of the driver of the vehicle, in question, is stated to be Shri Amrinder Singh.

In the impugned order, it has been found that the appellant-Insurance Company had appointed its own Surveyor and Assessor, namely Shri Surjeet Singh who found the claim of the damage caused to the vehicle as a result of accident which occurred on 1.2.1996 as genuine to the extent of the above amount. In his report, the said Shri Surjeet Singh has indicated against Col. No. 5 as follows : "D.L. Checked and found in-order". This report is Annexure R-4 on the record.

HOWEVER, it appears that another Investigator Shri Vinod Kumar Verma was appointed subsequently, who gave his report at Annexure R-3 on the record, which appears to be contra to the earlier report of Shri Surjeet Singh vide Annexure R-4. We are not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case as borne out from the record as to what was the necessity of appointing a second Surveyor-cum-Investigator after the claim of respondent to the extent of Rs. 19,702/- was found to be genuine and valid by the earlier Surveyor and Assessor, namely Shri Surjeet Singh.

MOREOVER, the reliance placed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company on the two documents Annexures R-2 and R-3 has rightly been negatived by the District Forum in the impugned order. This is so inasmuch as the report of the Licensing Authority, Sirsa (Haryana) sought to be relied upon on behalf of the appellant has not been duly proved and was rightly ruled out of consideration in the impugned order. The reasons given in para-11 of the impugned order in this behalf are valid and justified in our perception. It has been found therein that the said report of the Licensing Authority, Sirsa (Haryana) was not accompanied either by an affidavit of the said Authority or some official working under him acquainted and familiar with the handwriting and signature on the same. Not only that, in our view, it was open to the appellant-Insurance Company to summon any responsible official from the office of the Licensing Authority, Sirsa (Haryana) to prove the contents of the report, primarily for identifying the signatures of the competent official on the said report. That, admittedly, was not done. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that proceedings before the Consumer FORA are summary proceedings and strict rules of evidence as incorporated in the law of evidence in this country do not apply. This arguments is unenable on the short ground that the scheme and object of the Consumer Protection Act clothes the Consumer FORA right upto the apex level with the trappings of a Court. Therefore, to say that rules of evidence do not apply to the proceedings before us, does not round convincing. The matter can be examined from another angle. Owners of vehicles pay high premium and get their vehicles insured against accidents etc. which otherwise is mandated by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If the insurers (in the present case the appellant-Insurance Company) are allowed to repudiate the claim of the insured arising from accidents to such vehicles on technical grounds, it will play havoc with the rights of the insured under the law and also result in a piquant situation. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly rejected. Appeal dismissed.