VINOD SHARMA S/O LATE NEEM CHAND SHARMA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 17.05.2016, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 64/2016, "National Insurance Company Limited versus Vinod Sharma", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 07.01.2016, passed by the District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 281/2011, filed by the present Petitioner/Complainant Vinod Sharma, allowing the said Complaint, was set aside and the Consumer Complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The Complainant Vinod Sharma is stated to have purchased a Maruti Alto Car on 18.02.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,66,025/- and got it insured with the Opposite Party (OP) National Insurance Company for the period 18.02.2010 to 17.02.2011. The aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No. HP01A2194 was registered as a Taxi. It is stated in the Consumer Complaint that on 10.11.2010, the said vehicle being driven by Junas driver was hired by one Guman Singh. On the way, the driver stopped the vehicle and went away to answer the call of the nature. The said Guman Singh was sitting inside the vehicle. At that time, the vehicle was hit by a L.P. Truck coming from the opposite side, as a result of which, it was pushed down into a gorge and suffered extensive damage. When the driver came back to the spot after answering the call of the nature, he found that Guman Singh was not there on the spot and the vehicle had gone down the gorge. The driver went down to see the vehicle and on his return to the same spot, he found the passenger Guman Singh as well as one Diwan Singh on that spot. Guman Singh had sustained injuries during the incident and he was brought to the hospital. An FIR was lodged by Diwan Singh at Police Station Dhalli on 10.11.2010 itself. An intimation about the accident was given to the Insurance Company, which appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor found that it was a case of total loss, but the Insurance Company did not settle the claim despite the report of the Surveyor. As per the Complainant, he sent a legal notice to the OP Insurance Company on 08.07.2011, but the said company sent a letter to him that was backdated for 08.03.2011, in which it was stated that as per the FIR recorded by Diwan Singh in the Police Station, the vehicle was being driven by Guman Singh, whereas as per the affidavits given by Junas and Guman Singh, the vehicle was being driven by Junas and Guman Singh was just a passenger. The Insurance Company asked the complainant to clarify the contradictory statements and to send them the final Police Investigation Report. The Complainant sent a letter dated 15.07.2011 to the Insurance Company, explaining that the vehicle was being driven by Junas on the fateful day. Following the failure of the Insurance Company to settle the claim, the complainant filed the Consumer Complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay the sum assured, i.e., Rs. 2,62,224/- on account of loss, a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of harassment, Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation alongwith interest @12% p.a. In addition, the Complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per day with effect from 10.01.2011 for the loss suffered by him in not earning his livelihood.

(3.) The Complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the version given in the FIR and the affidavits given by Junas and Guman Singh were found to be contradictory. The Insurance Company appointed an Investigator Sanjay Singh Chauhan, who stated in his report dated 25.04.2011 that after obtaining the record pertaining to the incident in question, from the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Shimla and after looking at the statements to the Police during investigation, it was made out that Guman Singh was actually driving the vehicle on the date of the accident. The Insurance Company further stated that there had been no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in handling the claim. Moreover, the intimation about the accident had been given one month after the accident took place. The complaint was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.