DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. AND ANR. versus SAMIR CHANDRA CHAUDHARY

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 14-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. AND ANR. A 
v. 
SAMIR CHANDRA CHAUDHARY 
JULY 14, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: 
Claim for damages of vehicle-Admission by complainant that accident C 
was caused on account of storm-Loss due to storm not covered by Insurance 
Policy-Later plea of complainant that theJactum of storm wrongly stated-
Certificate to the effect of non-existence of storm by meteorological authority 
produced-The same neither exhibited nor witness examined to prove it-
Claim al/owed by Courts below-On appeal, held: since the fact of accident 
due to storm was admitted by the complainant, the onus to_ prove to the D 
contrary was on him-Hence matter remitted to N~tional Commission for 
fresh adjudication-Evidence Act, 1872. 
. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Admission-Evidentiary value and nature of-
Held: Evidentiary admissions are of conclusive proof of the facts admitted but E 
they raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on the person making 
admission or his representative-in-interest-Unless shown or explained to be 
wrong they are efficacious proof of the facts admitted. 
A vehicle owned by the respondent-complainant, was rented out. While 
the vehicle was parked under a tree, the same got damaged because a tree F 
fell on it. Respondent made two claims, one on account of loss of hiring charges 
and second for repairing the vehicle. Appellant-insurance Company repudiat~ 
the claim. Complainant filed claim before District Consumer Forum. In the 
letter making claim to the appellant-Company as well as in the complaint it 
was mentioned that the tree fell on the vehicle due to storm. Complainant's 
plea was that 'storm' was wrongly mentioned. He produced a certificate from G 
Meteorological authority to the effect that there was no storm at the relevant 
time. District Forum by majority held that in view of the certificate by 
Meteorological authority it was established that there was no storm and hence 
the damage was covered by the insurance policy and directed the appellant-
. 
. 
613 
H 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting it to National Commission, the 
Court. 
HELD: 1. Though evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of 
D the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do 
raise ail estoppel and shift the burden of proof placing it on the person making 
the admission or his representative-in-interest. Unless shown or explained to 
be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted. As the weight of 
an admission depends on the circumstances under which it was made, these 
circumstances may always be proved to impeach or enhance its credibility. 
E The effect of admission is that it shifts the onus on the person admitting the 
fact 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 the 
F 
matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. 
Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal and Ors., AIR (1979) SC 861 and 
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosayi Balajiwae v. Gopal Vinayak Gosayi and Ors., 
AIR (1960) SC 100, relied on. (618-G; 619-A-C] 
G 
Law of Evidence by Phipson (1963) Edition 678, referred to. 
2. 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 
H of clinching nature so as to outweigh the admission. The National Commission 
DIV.MANAGERUNITEDINDIAINSURANCECO.LTD. v. S.C. CHAUDHARY [PASAYAT,J.j 615 
did not consider these aspects. The State Commission's approach was also A 
not in the correct direction. In the aforesaid background it would be in the 
interest of justice to remit the matter to the National Commission for hearing 
the matter afresh. (619-C, D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3663 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.2004 of the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 1223 of2004. 
A.K. De, S.K. Bharti and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellants. 
Ranjan Mukherjee for the Respondent. 
T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.