IMPORTANT POINT
Driving License – As it is proved that the vehicle was in stationary condition, therefore, there was no necessity of driving licence of the insured and in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President—This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 313 of 2019, styled as Smt. Nirmala Panwar Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that late Ranveer Singh Panwar, the deceased husband of respondent / complainant – Smt. Nirmala Panwar, was the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. UK07-CB-2225, which was insured with the appellant / opposite party (insurance company) vide policy No. 3003/168656706/00/B00 for the period from 22.03.2018 to 21.03.2019 against all risks. On dated 18.08.2019, the insured vehicle was parked / stationed at Nagwada Tikochi and the driver went out of the vehicle after taking leave. On account of flash flood due to heavy rain, the insured vehicle washed away along with the insured – late Ranveer Singh Panwar, who was inside the vehicle and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The vehicle was also totally damaged. The intimation of the accident was forwarded to the insurance company, who appointed surveyor. The surveyor visited the spot and found the vehicle totally damaged. The dead body of the complainant’s husband was recovered from the debris. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was in stationary condition and the complainant’s husband was looking after the vehicle in the absence of the driver. All the documents sought by the surveyor, were provided by the complainant. The news of the said occurrence was also published in national newspaper. After completing all the formalities, the complainant was told that her claim is under process. The complainant’s son visited the local office of the insurance company, where he was told that the claim has been repudiated and a mail dated 23.11.2019 was given to him. The complainant’s husband had purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood. On account of repudiation of the claim, the complainant had to suffer mental and financial agony. There was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and by repudiating the claim of the complainant, the insurance company has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission, seeking reliefs as set out in the prayer clause of the consumer complaint.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant / opposite party before the District Commission, it was pleaded that the complainant’s claim was repudiated on dated 22.11.2019 on the ground that the complainant has concealed the true facts from the insurance company. In her statement, the complainant has contended that her husband had gone to Tikochi, Uttarkashi in the subject vehicle from Dehradun for some work on dated 17.08.2019 and since it got dark, hence he parked the insured vehicle and slept inside. On the next day at about 6:00 a.m., there was flash flood due to heavy rain and the vehicle was washed away along with the complainant’s husband. It was further pleaded that the complainant’s husband was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the complainant has concocted a false story. There has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. The District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the consumer complaint and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned District Commission, after hearing both the parties and after taking into consideration the material available on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.2013, thereby directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,600/- (IDV