NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the validity of judgment and order dated 21.11.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad in Complaint Case No.399/1998 has been challenged.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Phool Chand, r/o Matipura, Tahsil : Hasanpur District : Jyotiba Phooley Nagar had purchased an Eicher Tractor No. UP 21/a-5048. The said tractor was insured with the opposite party, National Insurance Company Limited, Station Road, Moradabad and the insurance was valid from 8.2.1996 to 7.2.1997 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. The said tractor on 18.4.1996 suffered an accident and the report of the same was lodged with the Police Station Hasanpur. After the accident the complainant got his tractor repaired and various amounts of Rs.99,000/-, Rs.1,700/-, Rs.39,446/- and Rs.19,500/- were spent. The tractor in question was purchased by the complainant after taking loan from the State Bank of India, Hasanpur. The entire documents along with affidavits etc. had been submitted before the opposite party for claiming the amount of the insurance but till date of filing of complaint, the claim was not given by the Insurance Company. The complainant, therefore, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum for an amount of Rs.1,59,736/- as the charges paid by him for repair of the tractor and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was also claimed as compensation for physical and mental torture.

(3.) In the written version before the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party, Insurance Company admitted the insurance of Rs.1,20,000/- and alleged that the occurrence of the incident is also not denied. The expenditure for repairs given by the complainant is totally wrong and concocted and no compensation/damage is liable to be paid to the complainant. After considering each and every aspect of the matter the claim of the complainant has been repudiated and the information has been given to the complainant by the Insurance Company. It was alleged that as per the F. I. R. lodged by the insured, the tractor was driven by Sri Ram Veer at the time of the alleged incident while the insured has mentioned in the claim form that Sri Desh Raj s/o Mahesh was the driver of the tractor at the time of accident. Driving licence of Desh Raj was submitted by the complainant and not that of Ram Veer. When the complainant was asked to clarify the contradiction in the names of the driver then he filed an affidavit to the effect that Ram Veer whose name has been mentioned in the F. I. R. is also known as Desh Raj. On an investigation, it was found that Sri Desh Raj is not known by any other name. The Investigator also enquired from Desh Raj who confirmed that he was neither driving the alleged tractor nor met with any accident. Desh Raj had informed the Investigator that a copy of his driving licence was carried by some person which was misused by the complainant. The driver of the tractor had no valid driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, the photocopy of the driving licence of Sri Desh Raj was misused to get the insurance claim and, therefore, the claim has been rightly repudiated.