TARA CHAND VERMA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrievedby the order dated 16.8.2011 passedby the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1643/2006, original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent Insurance Company against the order dated 12.5.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat, in complaint No. 97/2004 by which order the District Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the Insurance Company to make payment of Rs. 76,552 along with interest @ 12% from the date of accident till its realisation besides a compensation of Rs.2,000 for mental agony and harassment. The State Commission going by the pleas put forth by the Insurance Company has, however, reversed the said findings and allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint on twin reasons. Firstly, there was a doubt about the date and time when the car in question had met with an accident and, secondly, intimation as required by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was not given to the Insurance Company immediately after the accident.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have considered their submissions. The fact and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders passed by the Fora below and need no repetition at our end. The claim was repudiated primarily on the ground that intimation of the accident was given after more than one month of the accident which amounted to breach of the condition No. 1 of the insurance policy, which envisaged for an immediate intimation about the circumstances in which the accident took place.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record. In this connection, he has invited our attention to a communication dated 1.9,2003 professed as intimation letter addressed to National Insurance Company, Sonepat and signed by the petitioner/complainant intimating about the car in question having met with an accident on 20.8.2003 was lying with the Gravity Cars, New Delhi. This letter bears two endorsements one dated 2.9.2003 thereby appointing Mr.Inderjeet Singh as Surveyor and second dated 3.10.2003. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of accident given in the said letter was incorrectly recorded because the car in question had in fact met with accident on 24.8.2003 for which a DD report lodged with the Police Station, Sarai Rohilla. Our attention has also been invited to a certain clarification rendered by the employee of Gravity Motors where it is explained that the car had in fact brought to the garage of Gravity Motors on 24.8.2003 itself and was there since then. The Surveyor got the position clarified and he came to the conclusion that the accident in fact has taken place on 24.8.2003. Therefore, to say that the complainant misrepresented about the date of accident, etc. cannot be upheld. We are of the view that the actual date of accident is 24.8.2003 and not 28.8.2003. Therefore, the claim could not have been rejected on that ground.