PREMANAND BIJLAWAN Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.3.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Dehradoon in Complaint Case No.302/1991.

(2.) The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant got insured his Truck No. UMS-8099 with the Oriental Insurance Company. It is alleged that the insurance took place on 8.12.1990 ending on 7.12.1991. According to the complainant, the truck met with an accident on 12.12.1990. The Insurance Company was informed and an F. I. R. was also lodged with the police station. The claim was also registered with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Company has neither repudiated the claim nor made the payment. The complainant, therefore, prayed that the claim be decreed according to the estimate submitted by him. The case of the complainant is opposed by the Insurance Company in the written statement. It is alleged by the Oriental Insurance Company that the comprehensive insurance of the truck was taken by the complainant by making fraudulent, mis-representation of facts and concealing the true facts. The some of the questions were left blank and wrong replies were given. The chassis number and engine number were not mentioned in the proposal form. The model of truck was mentioned of 1988. The copy of the proposal form is filed alongwith the written statement. It is further alleged that on 8.12.1990 was Saturday and 9.12.1990 was Sunday, therefore, the said proposal form was submitted in the Branch Office at Rishikesh on 10.12.1990. When it was found that the said proposal form is incomplete and the truck being UMS-8099 the Competent Authority became suspicious about the particulars of the impugned vehicle, therefore, an employee was directed to verify the same from the ARTO Office, Rishikesh. On enquiry, it was revealed that the impugned truck is of an old model and its model is military disposal. The said enquiry was conducted on 10.12.1990. The photo-copy of the letter is attached herewith as Annexure No.2.

(3.) The old model of the truck was not to be insured comprehensively, therefore, a registered letter dated 10.12.1990 was written to the complainant intimating that this vehicle cannot be comprehensively insured and the excess premium charged was refunded. It is further alleged that the accident did not take place as alleged on 6.12.1990 while it has been alleged that the accident took place on 12.12.1990. On enquiry by the Insurance Company, it was found that the accident took place before the insurance cover was taken.