BHAGAT RAM Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL record as requisitioned from the respondent has been produced by Mr. Sharma.

(2.) IT is admitted case of the parties that during the course of trial of Complaint No. 257/2005, stand of the respondent-Insurance Company was that claim made in this case has also been paid in addition to another claim of the subsequent Insurance year. Whereas fact of the matter is that the claim in respect of subsequent accident was paid, but not in respect of the accident which is subject-matter of this complaint. This has resulted in filing of the appeal by the respondent.

(3.) ON our specific inquiry, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent-Insurance Company stated that under the terms of policy at the time of accident vehicle was admittedly insured with his client. It covered limited liability risk in respect of one driver and two other employees for which premium had been charged by the respondent. Further according to Mr. Sharma his clients had specifically asked the appellant to provide the information regarding who was the person sitting in the vehicle and in what capacity. Though in response to this letter, the appellant gave the particulars of his cleaner i. e. , one Mr. Suresh Kumar, but not of the other person. Reason for not giving the particulars of the other person was that he had not sustained any injury. As such according to Mr. Verma there was no need to give the particulars of the second person who was sitting in the vehicle at the time of accident. This resulted in closure of claim file of the appellant by respondent-insurers. Having felt with such closure, the appellant filed complaint before the District Forum below, which has been dismissed. Hence this appeal.