If he wanted to explain the admission, the onus was on him to adduce material to show the companytrary.
The factual background in a nutshell is as follows The companyplainant is the owner of an Ambassador Diesel Car which was registered as a taxi and was hired by the Executive Engineer, Agri Make Division, Purulia for official use.
Such material has to be of clinching nature so as to outweigh the admission.
Therefore, the finding to the effect that the accident was companyered by the terms of the policy cannot be maintained.
While the President was of the view that the companyplainants plea regarding wrong mention about the storm and the reliance on the letter of Meteorological authority were without substance, the other two members held that the document i.e. letter of the Meteorological authorities clearly established that there was numberstorm and, therefore, the damage was companyered by the terms of the insurance policy.
The same was number exhibited and numberwitness was examined to prove its authenticity.
Firstly in the letter dated 29.4.1992 i.e. the next date of the accident it has been categorically numbered 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 revision filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in short the Act was dismissed.
Reference was made to the letter written by the companyplainants brother and the claim petition lodged.
There was a difference of opinion amongst the members of the District Forum.
Two claims were made one related to the loss on account of loss of hiring charges and the other related to the expenses incurred for repairing the damaged vehicle.
For the first time he produced before District Forum the letter Certificate.
The terms of the policy of insurance to which reference has been made by learned companynsel for both the parties read as follows Section 1 Loss or damage The Company will indemnify the insured against loss or damage to the Motor Vehicle and or its accessories whilst thereon a by fire, explosion, self opinion or lighting b by burglary, housebreaking or theft c by riot and strike d by earthquake fire and shock damage e by flood, typhoon, tempest, Hurrican, storm, Inundation, Cyclone, Hailstorm, frost.
On 28.4.1992 at about 5.30 p.m. an Eucalyptus tree under which the car was parked fell on the car and extensive damage was caused and without repairing the vehicle companyld number have been made road worthy.
The District Forum also directed the payment of interest 18 p.a.
The said Khalasi was also number examined.
The Insurance Company resisted the companyplaint before the District Forum on the ground that the loss was caused due to a storm which resulted in falling of the branch of the Eucalyptus tree on the car.
The vehicle was the subject matter of insurance under an insurance policy for the period from 5.2.1992 to 4.2.1993.
The National Commission did number companysider these aspects.
Even in the Claim Petition it was clearly stated that the car was standing under a tree and because of heavy storm a road side tree fell down on the car which was badly damaged.
The respondent hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant had lodged a companyplaint 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 companyered by the policy of insurance taken by him.
Learned companynsel for the companyplainant respondent submitted that the facts were number known to the companyplainants brother and, therefore, the letter was written and the Claim Petition was filed on the basis of wrong information.
80,000 towards the repairing charges and a sum of Rs.
The insurer moved the National Commission in revision.
Certain facts are undisputed.
The National Commission in the impugned order held that on hearing learned companynsel for the insurer it was clear that damage to the vehicle which occurred on account of falling of Eucalyptus tree was companyered under the policy.
The insurer was directed to pay Rs.
1,62,000 for loss of hiring charges.
In view of the clinching evidence in the shape of the Meteorological Departments letter, the insurer had erroneously rejected the claim.
The State Commissions approach was also number in the companyrect direction.
The companyplainants brother had admitted before the District Forum that he had heard about the storm from a Khalasi.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
f by accidental external means g by malicious act h by terrorism whilst in transit by road, rail, inland waterway, lift, elevator, or air j rock slide land slide.
The United Insurance Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the insurer and its Branch Manager, Purulia Branch call in question legality of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in short the National Commission upholding the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in short the State Commission .
The incident was reported to the Insurance Company who repudiated the claims on the ground that it was number companyered by the policy.
