ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a
complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Co.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had an insurance cover taken
from the Respondent for the period from 16.4.91 to 15.4.92 for the the Maruti Car.
This car met with an accident on 19.6.91. On preferring a claim for repairs to the
damaged car, the Respondent Company after getting the matter investigated and
surveyed repudiated the claim on the ground at the time of accident the car was
not being driven by a person with a valid driving licence. A complaint was filed by
the complainant before the district Forum which allowed the complaint and awarded
compensation of Rs. 1,10,674.85 being the cost of repairs along with interest @ 12%
from the date of accident till realisation. An appeal filed by the Respondent against
this order, was allowed by the State Commission. Revision Petition filed by the
complainant before the National Commission was dismissed. On an SLP being filed
by the Complainant, Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by this
Commission and State Commission and remanded the case of State Commission to
decide the case on merits. The State Commission heard the case afresh and allowed
the appeal, setting aside the order of the District Forum. It is in these circumstances
that the Petitioner is before us with this Revision Petition. The order of the State
Commission is assailed on three grounds namely that the crucial witness, the driver of
the car was not cross-examined; that the State Commission erred in not believing the
complainants that the vehicle at the time was being driven by the driver, having a
valid license, and thirdly, appointment of investigator and unilateral investigation by
an investigator appointed by the Respondent is not known to law and is violation of
principles of natural justice.
3. As far as the first point is concerned, we see no material or prayer made at any
stage by the Complainant to cross-examine the driver whose affidavit was on record
of the District Forum. What District Forum records is “the Complainant has called
upon Dalip Sharma for cross-examination, however the cross-examination did not
materialise”. We see no prayer made before the State Commission to remand the case
or to permit cross-examination of Dileep Sharma at the appellate state. Having taken
no such plea as per record, we see no merit at the stage to harp on this point. As far as
third point is concerned, under the Insurance Act, if the loss is more than
Rs. 20,000/- and insurers are obliged to appoint surveyor and if considered necessary,
the insurer can also appoint investigators where a question of fact has to be
ascertained. Appointment of Investigator is as per practice in the Insurance Sector. It
may perhaps not be within the knowledge of the insured but that is no good ground
to consider it violative of natural justice. The Petitioner was free to ask for the cross
examination of the investigator. We see no merit in this plea. Coming to the most
important point, we see that the (SIC) case of the complainant is that the (SIC)
was being driven by Dalip Sharma whereas Dalip Sharma on affidavit has stated that
he was not driving the car. It was alleged by the complainant that the driver was
injured during the accident and treated by one Dr. Shah. On investigation Dr. Shah
stated that he has never treated Dalip Sharma. He has not been cross-examined and
no effort seems to have been made by the Petitioner to pray for his cross-examination
even at the appellate stage. The high point repeatedly being made by the Petitioner is
that Dalip Sharma’s licence was sent to the Respondent company. There is no proof
on record to substantiate the plea of the Petitioner that at the time of accident, he was
driving the ill fated car. In the absence of any clear evidence/proof we find it difficult
to believe the story of the Petitioner. There is enough material to the contrary which
has been ably discussed by the State Commission in its order. In view of the
discussion above, we see no merit in the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner,
hence dismissed. No orders as to costs._