Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P.S. Rana ®, President, Vijay Pal Khachi, Ms. Meena Verma, Members.
Bani Sharma - Appellant
Versus
New India Assurance Company Limited - Respondent
First Appeal No. 299 of 2016
Decided On : 30-10-2017
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - Section 12, Section 15 - The judgment discusses the validity of an insurance claim under the Consumer Protection Act. The court analyzed the driving license verification reports and affidavits filed by the insurance company's surveyors, ultimately dismissing the appeal due to the lack of evidence to support the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint against the insurance company seeking indemnification for damages to a vehicle involved in an accident. The insurance company repudiated the claim, arguing that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes and the driver did not hold a valid driving license at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driving license verification reports and affidavits submitted by the insurance company's surveyors were reliable and trustworthy. It concluded that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the reports and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Validity of the insurance claim under the Consumer Protection Act, sufficiency of evidence to support the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the driving license verification reports and affidavits to determine the validity of the insurance claim. It emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support a claim under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own litigation costs. The court ordered the transmission of the certified copy of the order to the parties.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 23.08.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 41 of 2014 title Bani Sharma v. New India Assurance Company Limited .
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant Bani Sharma filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that complainant is registered owner of vehicle No. HP-72B-1021. It is pleaded that vehicle of complainant was insured with opposite party vide insurance policy No. 36080231120100007577 w.e.f. 26.12.2012 to 25.12.2013. It is further pleaded that complainant after verifying driving licence of Mintu Singh and after obtaining physical driving test of Mintu Singh and after satisfying himself that driver was holding valid driving licence employed him as driver. It is further pleaded that on dated 22.05.2013 driver of complainant loaded cement sheets from Mehatpur District Una (HP) in vehicle and vehicle was approaching Baijnath (HP). It is further pleaded that second driver of vehicle namely Mohan Lal s/o Ramji Dass was also along with him. It is further pleaded that vehicle was driven by Mintu Singh. It is further pleaded that when vehicle reached near Radha Swami Satsang Veas ahead from Dhaliara at about 5:30 AM on dated 24.05.2013 then another vehicle having registration No. HR-55P-0715 which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver Jagroop came from Chintpurni side and hit vehicle No. HP-72B-1021. It is further pleaded that Mohan Lal sitting in the truck sustained grievance injuries on his right leg and it is further pleaded that truck No. HP-72B-1021 was damaged. It is further pleaded that accident was reported to concerned police station and FIR No. 98 dated 24.05.2013 was registered in Police station Dehra District Kangra under sections 279, 337 IPC. It is further pleaded that complainant immediately informed opposite party and completed all codal formalities. It is further pleaded that opposite party on 23.09.2013 repudiated claim. It is further pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief that opposite party be directed to release insurance claim of complainant along with interest till realization. Complainant also sought additional relief of payment of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand) on account of deficiency and negligence in service and complainant also sought additional relief of Rs. 20000/- (Twenty thousand) as litigation costs and misc. expenditure.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant is not consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that complaint is not maintainable because vehicle was commercial vehicle and was used for commercial purpose at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that driver of vehicle No. HP-72B-1021 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive vehicle at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that owner of vehicle violated terms and conditions of insurance policy intentionally. It is further pleaded that complainant did not complete all legal formalities despite repeated request. It is further pleaded that complainant has concealed material facts. It is further pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in complaint.
5. Learned District Forum dismissed complaint. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
