SACHIN BHALCHANDRA SHAH Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had an insurance cover taken from the respondent for the period from 16.4.1991 to 15.4.1992 for the Maruti Car. This car met with an accident on 19.6.1991. On preferring a claim for repairs to the damaged car, the respondent Company after getting the matter investigated and surveyed repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of accident the car was not being driven by a person with a valid driving licence. A complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum which allowed the complainant and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,10,674.85 being the cost of repairs along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of accident till realisation. An appeal filed by the respondent against this order, was allowed by the State Commission. Revision petition filed by the complainant before the National Commission was dismissed. On an SLP being filed by the complainant, Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by this Commission and State Commission and remanded the case to State Commission to decide the case on merits. The State Commission heard the case afresh and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the District Forum. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner is before us with this revision petition. The order of the State Commission is assailed on three grounds namely that the crucial witness, the driver of the car was not cross-examined; that the State Commission erred in not believing the complainant that the vehicle at the time was being driven by the driver, having a valid licence, and thirdly, appointment of investigator and unilateral investigation by an investigator appointed by the respondent is not known to law and is violation of principles of natural justice.

(2.) As far as the first point is concerned, we see no material or prayer made at any stage by the complainant to cross-examine the driver whose affidavit was on record of the District Forum. What District Forum records is "the complainant has called upon Dalip Sharma for cross-examination, however the cross-examination did not materialise". We see no prayer made before the State Commission to remand the case or to permit cross-examination of Dalip Sharma at the appellate stage. Having taken no such plea as per record, we see no merit at the stage to harp on this point. As far as third point is concerned, under the Insurance Act, if the loss is more than Rs. 20,000/- and insurers are obliged to appoint Surveyor and if considered necessary, the insurer can also appoint investigators where a question of fact has to be ascertained. Appointment of investigator is as per practice in the Insurance Sector. It may perhaps not be within the knowledge of the insured but that is no good ground to consider it violative of natural justice. The petitioner was free to ask for the cross-examination of the investigator. We see no merit in this plea.

(3.) Coming to the most important point, we see that throughout the case of the complainant is that the car was driven by Dalip Sharma whereas Dalip Sharma on affidavit has stated that he was not driving the car. It was alleged by the complainant that the driver was injured during the accident and treated by one Dr. Shah. On investigation Dr. Shah stated that he has never treated Dalip Sharma. He has not been cross-examined and no effort seems to have been made by the petitioner to pray for his cross-examination even at the appellate stage. The high point repeatedly being made by the petitioner is that Dalip Sharma's licence was sent to the respondent Company. There is no proof on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that at the time of accident, he was driving the ill-fated car. In the absence of any clear evidence/proof we find it difficult to believe the story of the petitioner. There is enough material to the contrary which has been ably discussed by the State Commission in its order. In view of the discussion above, we see no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner, hence dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.