UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/respondent owned a truck bearing no. RJ-01-G-6883 which he had got insured with the petitioner company. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the consumer complaint, is that on 06.06.2012, driver Pappu had taken the truck loaded with dry mustard grass and while unloading it, sparks came out suddenly from the silencer due to which dry mustard grass caught fire and the truck got burnt. Fire Brigade was also called on the spot to extinguish the fire. On the petitioner being informed, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.4,91,000/- but he recommended claim on Constructive Total Loss Basis only subject to the terms & conditions of the policy and acceptance of liability by the insurer. An investigator was appointed by the petitioner to investigate the incident and he submitted report dated 04.11.2012 stating therein that in fact the vehicle was being driven by one Hansraj and not by Pappu. During the course of investigation, the aforesaid investigator obtained a certified copy of the report of Fire Department obtained under the Right to Information Act and on comparison of the said certified copy with the copy provided by the complainant, it transpired that the complainant had, by hand, scored off the name of the driver and changed it from Hansraj to Pappu. The claim was thereafter, repudiated by the insurer vide letter dated 28.08.2013 which to the extent, it is relevant, reads as under:

(2.) The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 11.12.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,91,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, compensation quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.50,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

(3.) The first question which comes to consideration in this revision petition is as to whether the vehicle was being driven by Hansraj or it was being driven by Pappu. This becomes relevant as no driving license in favour of Hansraj has been produced leading to the inference that he did not possess a valid driving license at the time this incident happened. As noted earlier, the case of the complainant/respondent, in the consumer complaint is that the truck was being driven by Pappu who had taken it alongwith dry mustard grass loaded in it. A perusal of the certified copy of the report of the Fire Department dated 10.09.2012 would show that when the Fire Brigade reached the spot, it came to know that Ramlal S/o Deva was the owner of the truck whereas Hansraj S/o Prahlad was its driver. The number of the vehicle was also mentioned in the report of the Fire Department. A comparison of the said certified copy, which is available on page no. 75 of the paper-book which the complainant made available to the insurer, would show that the name Hansraj which had been typed in the report, was scored off and the word 'Pappu' was written by hand in the copy made available by the complainant/respondent to the insurer. It is therefore, evident that a forged copy of the report of the Fire Department was submitted by the complainant to the insurer in order to substantiate his claim. By submitting a forged document in support of his claim, the complainant/respondent tried to defraud the insurer and therefore, the insurer would be justified in rejecting the claim on account of submission of the said forged document itself.