MANU/CF/0084/2018

IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

Revision Petition No. 3362 of 2016

Decided On: 29.01.2018

Appellants: Kaustubh Gajanan Dixit Vs. Respondent: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member) and Dr. S.M. Kantikar

ORDER

Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)

1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.07.2016, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. A/15/595, "Koustubh Gajanan Dixit versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 09.04.2015, passed by the District Forum Ratnagiri in consumer complaint No. 35/2013, filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant is the owner of a Ford Fiesta Car No. MH08R 8803, which was insured with the Opposite party (OP), Oriental Insurance Company for the period 13.08.2012 to 12.08.2013. It is stated in the consumer complaint that the complainant wanted to take the said car to Pune (Maharashtra) for servicing, but since he was occupied with some personal work, he asked his childhood friend Shridhar Shantaram Athavale to take the car to Pune on 04.01.2013. Another friend of the complainant, Sainath Narayan Kalzunkar told him that his acquaintance Mr. Panda, Manager at RFPL wanted to go to Pune with his wife and hence, they decided that the car shall be taken to Pune on 04.01.2013 by Shridhar Shantaram Athavale alongwith Mr. Panda and his wife. However, when the vehicle started back from Pune on the next day, i.e., 05.01.2013 after servicing, alongwith Mr. Panda and his wife, it met with an accident at 3:30 AM on 06.01.2013, when it dashed against a tree near Chikhali, Ta-guhagar. The car was towed to Kolhapur and taken to the Planet Ford Service Centre. The OP Insurance Company was informed about the incident and claim was also filed with them. As admitted by him in the consumer complaint, the complainant wrongly stated in the claim form that he had been driving the car at the time of the accident. However, despite submitting all necessary documents to the Insurance Company, the claim was not paid, rather the same was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was being used for hiring purpose. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay him a sum of 5,87,700/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. and also compensation on various other grounds.

3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the car was rented out to Mr. Panda, Manager, RGPL which was violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Further, the car was being driven by Shridhar Shantaram Athavale at the time of the accident, whereas the complainant made a wrong statement at the time of filing the claim that he himself was driving the said car. As per the investigation got carried out by the OP Insurance Company, the driver Shridhar Shantaram Athavale gave an affidavit, saying that the vehicle was hired by Mr. Panda and his wife. Mr. Panda also stated in his affidavit that he had hired the car from the complainant for travelling to Pune. The complainant had, therefore, no right to demand any compensation from the OP Insurance Company due to his fraudulent conduct, and hence, the complaint deserved to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum, after considering the averments of the parties, dismissed the consumer complaint vide their order dated 09.04.2015 and brought out clearly in their order that Shridhar Shantaram Athavale was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, but the complainant had wrongly and falsely stated that he himself was driving the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle had been given on hire, which was against the terms and conditions of the Policy in question. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.

5. The State Commission observed in their order that the complainant had suppresse........