Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
M.J. Mehta, Judicial Member and P.R. Shah, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Nareshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel – Respondent
Appeal No.231 of 2019
Decided on 16.1.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. A.R. Mehta, L.A.
For the Respondent: No appearance
IMPORTANT POINT
Reasoned order - There is no concrete cogent reasons given by the Ld. District Commission as to why the assessment as per the surveyors assessment sheet was not accepted and therefore, merely on observation and presumptions it cannot be considered an appropriate decision.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Appeal - Services – Insurance – Unreasoned order – Set aside - On facts, there is no reason assigned by the Ld. District Commission, regarding allowing the full claim of the complainant as per the expenses incurred for the truck which was Rs. 16,00,429/- Thus, there is no concrete cogent reasons given by the Ld. District Commission as to why the assessment as per the surveyors assessment sheet was not accepted and therefore, merely on observation and presumptions it cannot be considered an appropriate decision by the Ld. District Commission – On facts, the present appeal is required to be partly allowed and the amount as assessed by the surveyor Rs. 12,37,877/- is to be awarded to the complainant – Thus, Appeal is allowed. [Paras 13 to 15]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
M.J. Mehta, Judicial Member—Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. A. R. Mehta. He has submitted an application to proceed the matter Ex-parte against the respondent in appeal No. 231 of 2019. Ld. Advocate submitted that the notice of this appeal on admission was issued and the appellant advocate had taken direct service at the time of admission of the appeal. The appellant advocate has duly served a copy of the Appeal, summons issued and all list of documents to the Respondent on 21.12.2019. The Track consignment sheet was produced before this Commission which showed that the delivery was done on 21.12.2019 at 12:51:58 hrs to the Respondent. Therefore, considering that despite the notice being already served on 21.12.2019 there is no appearance from the respondent side the appellant advocate has submitted an application requesting to deal with the appeal Ex-parte. As all the necessary documents were considered by Hon’ble Appellate Commission at the time of admitting appeal and notice was duly served upon the respondent and thereby, at this juncture the matter shall have to be proceeded Ex-parte.
2. Considering the submissions and documentary evidence we are of the opinion that the evidence of the service of the notice is already established. And therefore, we decide to pass the order to proceed with the matter Ex-parte.
3. Ex-parte Application granted. Necessary proceedings be carried out by the Office.
4. Thereby, today heard the matter. The appellant has preferred an appeal being aggrieved with the judgment delivered by the Ld. District Commission, Surat (main), on 30.11.2018 in Complaint No.381/16.
5. The appellant is the original opponent where as the respondent is the original complaint therefore, hereinafter the parties will be referred to by their original nomenclature/status.
6. The brief facts of the complainant are as under:
The complainant had obtained Insurance Policy of his truck GJ5 BT 8079 and on 17.01.2014. According to complainants case the truck was burnt due to a short-circuit and thereby the damage estimated was about Rs. 15,00,000/. The complainant got the truck repaired at the Company Authorized Service Centre, Nanavati Auto Mobiles Repair and incurred the expenses of Rs. 16,00,429/- The complainant submitted the claim before the Insurance Company and it was rejected because the driver was not having a valid driving licence.
7. So, the complaint was filed and defendant Insurance Company appeared before the Ld. District Consumer Commission and taken the defence that the driving licence No. 4741/3/SS of Rohtas R.T.O. Office of the truck driver was fake licence and therefore, there is a breach of the driver clause of the policy. The prime condition being that the driver of the vehicle ought to have a valid licence at the time of the incident but in the instant case when the short-circuit took place the licence was fake which is a prime breach of the terms and condition of the Policy.
8. The complainants Advocate submitted before Ld. District Commission that the driving licence is not a material issue because the incident has taken place because of short-circuit and thereby, resulting into damages and costs to the complainant and therefore, the complainant is entitled to the expenses incurred on repair of the truck and the Insurance Company unlawfully has not allowed the claim and therefore, the complaint is tenable. The Ld. District Commission, is of the view that the incident has taken place because of short-circuit and there is no evidence brought on record that there was negligence on part of the driver because of which there was short-circuit in the truck. Considering the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant complaint was allowed and opponent was ordered to pay to the complainant Rs. 16,00,429/- the expenses incurred for repair.
9. Today, this appeal is taken for hearing. Considering the application advanced on behalf of the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant original Opponent that the
