- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 17.9.09, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.09/ 07, whereby the appellant herein has been directed to pay Rs.3,78,193 along with interest? 6% p.a. from 31.10.07, till the date of payment and Rs.3,000 by way of compensation for mental agony and Rs.700 as cost of litigation.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that vehicle bearing No.CG -04 -1886 was of the registered ownership of Mohammed Akbar and that was insured by the appellant insurance company for a period between 31.3.06 to 30.3.07 by a comprehensive insurance policy. It was a Honda City car. On 12.7.06, when the registered owner Mohammed Akbar along with his son Mohammed Ashif was going from his factory to Tatibandh, in that car on ring road, then near Hirapur Loha Bazar a truck coming from opposite side rashly and negligently, dashed against the vehicle from front side and caused damages to the vehicle. The same truck on the same spot at the same time also dashed against a Bolero vehicle bearing No.CG -04 -R -1386 and thus it was a collusion among three vehicles causing damages to the insured vehicle. Mohammed Ashif received minor injuries in the accident, whereas the owner Mohammed Akbar sustained some internal injuries and died after 40 days. The incident of road accident was immediately reported on the same day to the Police Station, Amanaka and intimation was also given to the agent of the insurance company. Authorized Service Center of Honda Cars was also informed and employees of that Service Center came to the place of incident and had taken the vehicle to their workshop. Later on the insurance company appointed surveyor Pukhraj Jain to assess the loss. Surveyor Pukhraj Jain submitted his report to the insurance company, but the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per the report of the investigator of insurance company, the vehicle was damaged later on and damages were manipulated by the insured, causing prejudice to the insurance claim. Ground of late intimation was also taken for repudiation of the claim. Then, the complaint was filed before District Forum, in reply which also, the same defence was taken by the insurance company.
(3.) THE District Forum after evaluating the material placed before it, by both parties, allowed the claim of the complainant and passed the impugned order. We have heard arguments of all parties and perused the record of the District Forum.;