MATHRA DASS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINT filed by the appellant vide complaint case No. 71/2006 has been dismissed on 7.7.2006. Appellant being the owner of Mahindra and Mahindra Cab 2VD and having been insured on the date of accident i.e. 15.7.2005 with the respondent is not in dispute. It met with an accident. After accident, claim was lodged by him with the respondent, photostat copy whereof is at page 35 of the complaint file. Driver in this case has been shown to be one Avtar Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh and regarding production of driving licence it is mentioned driving licence baad main bataunga (Driving licence will be shown later on) This claim was lodged by the appellant on 14.7.2005. Date of the accident in the order is based on the facts detailed in the complaint which is of 15.7.2005, whereas in the claim form filed by the appellant with the respondent it is mentioned that on 13.7.2005 at 10.00 p.m. In the surveyors report date of accident is shown as 13.7.2005. Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 25,585.31 paise as is evident from his report, which is at pages 36 to 39 of the complaint file. Claim of the appellant was repudiated by the respondent because he had produced the licence of Sunil Kumar before it. Whereas complainant was saying that Sunil Kumar @ Avtar Singh @ Onkar was on the wheel at the time of accident.

(2.) WHILE contesting the complaint respondent placed reliance on the claim form admittedly filed by the appellant on the very next day of accident showing Avtar Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh to be the driver, but instead of proving his licence appellant has tried to show that Avtar Singh was also known as Sunil Kumar becuase his house name is Avtar Singh and Onkar thus Sunil Kumar was the actual driver when accident took place.

(3.) A further perusal of the complaint file shows that the appellant has placed on record number of documents except the driving licence. For this omission he has tried to blame the respondent who is alleged to have asked (him), the complainant to file the driving licence of Avtar Singh and not of Sunil Kumar who in fact was one and the same person. Primarily in the case of own damage it was for the appellant to have established by leading cogent and acceptable evidence to the effect that Avtar Singh and Sunil Kumar was the same person and he was known different by aliases. In this behalf, there is Annexure C7 a photostat copy of the affidavit of the appellant. It reads as under: