ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 10.12.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 237/2010. In this appeal, the Appeal of Petitioners/Opposite Parties (OPs) was allowed in part and reduced the compensation from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.75,000. Vide the Order dated 04.06.2010, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad (the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 308 of 2009 allowed the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent in part.

2. There was 21 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. Vide Order dated 12.02.2014, this Commission condoned the delay.

3. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he is the owner of truck No. JH-10-F-6021. It was properly insured under Package Policy No. 2947 with the Opposite Parties (OPs) from 30.09.2007 to 29.09.2008. On 04.06.2008, the said truck was involved in a collision with another truck, resulting in significant damage. The incident was reported both to the Gourhar Police Station (Case No. 23/08 dated 05.06.2008) and OPs. A surveyor appointed by the OPs assessed the loss to be around Rs.1,30,000. Subsequently, the truck underwent repairs, and a claim was submitted. However, the OPs repudiated the claim on the grounds that at time of the accident the driver of the Complainant’s vehicle did not have a valid driving license.

5. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the

claim, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint (No. 308 of 2009) before the District

Forum seeking relief of Rs.1,30,000 towards loss; Rs.20,000 as compensation for harassment; and Rs.5,000 for litigation cost.Top of Form

6. Upon notice, the OPs filed their reply, denying the claim of the Complainant and contended that the claim was denied due to the insured deliberately breaching the terms and conditions outlined in the insurance policy, rendering the claim void and illegitimate. The repudiation of the claim stemmed from the charge-sheeted driver, Md. Nizam, holding an invalid and ineffective driving license. Further, the OP clarified that Md. Kaisar was not the primary driver of the mentioned vehicle at the time of the reported accident, as it was being driven by Md. Nizam.

7. The District Forum vide order dated 04.06.2010 allowed the complaint in part and granted the following relief:—

“… From the perusal of the policy Bond it is clear that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with the O.P, the copy of F.I.R. reveals that there was an accident of the vehicle charge-sheet contained therein reveals that Md. Nizam was the driver on the date of the accident of the vehicle, the photocopy of driving license Annexed therein reveals that the driving license of Md. Nizam was valid up to 14.5.2010 while the accident took place on 4.6.08. Money receipt dt. 11.08.08 transpires that the complainant is incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.1,27,000/- in repairing the said damaged vehicle. We have also perused the citation reported In (1) 1996 (1) CPR 91 (NC) Jitendra Kr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2) 2001 (4) CPR 181 Sabey Ram Sharma Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., H.P. State commission (3) 2009 (3) CPR 48, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi, Jharkhand State Commission from the dicta of the aforesaid authorities, we hereby opine that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is wrong and the complainant is entitled to have the reliefs.

Accordingly, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) as lump sum amount for expenses of repairing along with cost of Rs.2000/- as a litigation cost within 30 days from the date of order i.e., 4.6.2010.

The case is allowed in part on contest with cost and finally disposed of.

8. Being a