1. THE complaint filed by the respondent/complainant for compensation in relation to the accident of the vehicle insured with the petitioner/OP was rejected by the District Forum vide order dated 2.9.2003. Against the said order, appeal was filed by the complainant in the State Commission. THE State Commission directed the Insurance Co. to pay compensation of Rs.1,08,016/- towards cost of spare parts purchased by the complainant apart from Rs.9,100/- allowed earlier by way of compensation including cost towards litigation along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. This order has been challenged by the petitioner/Insurance Co. in this revision.
2. HEARD Counsel appearing on both sides. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that occurrence of the accident itself is doubtful inasmuch as reliance was placed on Daily Diary Entry No.627/96 which pertained to another truck and it was only subsequently that another Daily Diary Entry was sought to be produced in connection with the accident in question as also the report of the police dated 30.6.98 on Daily Diary Entry No.205/98 dated 10.4.98 of Police Station Telaya. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also drew our attention to the report of surveyor, Engineer H.S. Singh on the strength of which it is urged that the factum of accident and damage to the vehicle has not been proved. He, therefore, contends that the revision be allowed. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant referred to the report of Surveyor, Ranjit Kumar Singh as also the spot survey by Mr. A. Ghose, Surveyor and the report filed by the Manager of the complainant with Police Station, Jhumri Telaya dated 28.5.1996 as Station Diary Entry No.205 dated 10.4.98. According to him, not only the accident has been duly established, but also the damage and the State Commission has very rightly allowed the claim, which does not call for interference.
We have gone through the record. In order to prove the accident, the complainant had relied upon the report made to the police vide S.D. Entry No.627/96 dated 28.5.96 to the Police In charge of Jhumri Telaya Police Station. However, during the course of investigation by the Insurance Co., it was found that S.D Entry No.627/96 pertains to complaint in respect of another truck No. WMH-868. Subsequently, the complainant sought to produce another S.D. Entry dated 28.5.96, which according to the complainant was 627/96. The complainant also relied upon DD Entry No.205/98 in respect of a complaint made by the complainant to Police Station Telaya on 4.7.1998 as also certificate dated 30.6.98 issued by Officer In charge, P.S. Telaya stating that after enquiry into the incidence of accident which took place on 28.5.96 it was found to be correct. There are major discrepancies if we compare the two S.D. Entries i.e. one which relates to Truck No.WMH-868 and other which relates to Dumper Triper No. BR-13G-9163 of the vehicle in respect of which, claim for compensation was filed by the complainant. The S.D. Entry relating to Dumper No.BR-13G-9163 appears to be manipulated document inasmuch as out of three-digit entry No. in the first digit there is overwriting and the digits which are visible are 27/90 dated 28.5.96. The seals of the Police Station used on the two S.D. Entries Annexure P-1 & P-2 of the same date filed along with the revision are totally different. One is round seal and the other is oval.
Moreover, both the S.D. Entries cannot be obviously have the same number i.e. 627/96 dated 28.5.96. It appears that the complainant had in fact approached the Police Station subsequently in respect of which, DD Entry No.205/98 dated 10.4.98 was recorded by the Police Station, Telaya and after investigating into the said DD Entry a report was given by the Officer In Charge, PS: Telaya on 30.6.98 that the accident had in fact taken place on 28.5.96.
3. IT appears that on the information given by the complainant to the Insurance Company, Mr. A. Ghose, Surveyor was appointed for spot survey. We had asked the Counsel for the respondent vide order dated 20.7.2010 to produce the spot survey report of Surveyor Mr. Ghose inasmuch as he had placed reliance of the spot survey report, but the same has not been produced. In fact, from the report dated 20.4.97 of Er. H.S. Singh, Surveyor it is clear from para 1.13 that when Mr. Ghose reached the spot, he did not find the vehicle at the spot and hence the spot survey could not be conducted. IT appears that thereafter one Shri Ranjit Kumar Singh was appointed Surveyor who submitted reported dated 15.11.96 to the Insurance Company. In this report, he has enumerated efforts made by him for inspection of hydraulic jack which was said to have been damaged on account of accident, but the dismantled inspection of jack was never arranged by the complainant even though it was repeatedly asked. IT appears that thereafter Surveyor, Er. H.S. Singh was asked to examine the claim put forward by the complainant and he submitted report dated 20.4.97.
In his report he has referred to the fact that spot survey could not be conducted by the Surveyor, Mr. A. Ghose as the vehicle was not found on the spot. He has also referred to the report of Surveyor, Mr. R.K. Singh. After investigating into the matter, he concluded that spot survey could not be conducted by Mr. A. Ghose, Surveyor as the vehicle was not available on the spot; that the copy of the FIR produced by the insured was false and fabricated; and that on analysis of the place of accident it was found that the damages caused to the structure where the accident took place were not consistent to the cause and nature of the accident explained by the insured in the claim form as well as in letter dated 20.12.1996 and that the complainants driver of the vehicle which met with an accident was not available for personal interview. In view of this, the surveyor came to the conclusion that it was doubtful whether the accident had taken place. The Insurance Company had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of this report. In view of the said report, the claim filed by the complainant obviously could not be granted and the State Commission erred in granting compensation in favour of the complainant. In fact, the State Commission has wrongly recorded that the Insurance Company had deputed a Surveyor who after having inspected the vehicle on the spot of the accident had submitted a report for repairing or replacement of parts of the vehicle. It appears that no such report was filed by the Surveyor, Shri A. Ghose who was deputed to inspect the vehicle on the spot of accident as the vehicle was not found on the spot and spot survey could not be conducted, as can be seen from the report of Er. H.S. Singh, Surveyor which has already been referred to above.
4. IN view of the above, the order of the State Commission granting compensation is required to be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission is hereby set aside. IN the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.
