9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission (in short the 'National Commission') upholding the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the 'State Commission'). The revision filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') was dismissed. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') had lodged a complaint before the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum. Purulia (in short the 'District Forum') alleging that the appellants had erroneously repudiated the claim made by him for the damage suffered by him on account of an accident covered by the policy of insurance taken by him. 3. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows: The complainant is the owner of an Amb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the terms of the Insurance policy. The insurer was directed to pay ₹ 80,000/- towards the repairing charges and a sum of ₹ 1,62,000/- for loss of hiring charges. The District Forum also directed the payment of interest @18% p.a. from the date of receipt of its order till the realization of the awarded amount in full. 5. The insurer carried the matter in appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission was of the view that the majority judgment suffers from no infirmity. The letter-certificate issued by the Meteorological authority clearly established that there was no storm. It however held that on the basis of Surveyor's report that the actual damage caused, the amount was to be fixed at ₹ 50,753/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent submitted that the facts were not known to the complainant's brother and, therefore, the letter was written and the Claim Petition was filed on the basis of wrong information. 9. In view of the clinching evidence in the shape of the Meteorological Department's letter, the insurer had erroneously rejected the claim. 10. Certain facts are undisputed. Firstly in the letter dated 29.4.1992 i.e. the next date of the accident it has been categorically noted that the car was damaged because of the falling of a branch of the tree and the branch fell due to storm and in the Claim Petition also it was categorically so stated. The terms of the policy of insurance to which reference ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The question therefore is whether the exclusion clause of special perils applies. This has to be factually adjudicated. On the one hand the statements made by the complainant's brother and the claim petition and on the other in a letter purported to have been written by the Meteorological authorities were pressed into service by the parties. It was rightly noted by the President of the District Forum in his minority order that the document was not exhibited and it was not clear as to who was the person who had given the certificate, and his authority to issue such a certificate. It is also not clear from the record as to whether the document in question was exhibited before the District Forum and if so, by whom. The complainant&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so, and until the presumption is rebutted, the fact admitted must be taken to be established. An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive is decisive of matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (See Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Ors. [1960]1SCR773 ). Contemporaneous documents clearly show that the complainant right from the beginning had accepted the position that the branch had got knocked off the tree because of storm. If he wanted to explain the admission, the onus was on him to adduce material to show the contrary. Such material has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
