Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 7168
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT, MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL IN CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
PRAKASH CHANDRA – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/20/339
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Amit Tiwari
For the Respondents: Shri Devanand Motwani
The insurance company cannot deny liability on policy violations not timely raised; valid driving license held by the driver's son confirmed entitlement to claim compensation.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 149 - Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Claim repudiation based on driver’s license - Claim for vehicular damage denied due to alleged violation of policy terms, specifically regarding the identity of the driver at the time of accident. The complainant clarified that his son was driving the vehicle. The District Commission ordered compensation based on surveyor's assessment of loss. (Paras 2, 4, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction - Obligation to raise jurisdictional objections at the trial court - The insurance company claimed the District Commission lacked territorial jurisdiction, but failed to present this argument until appeal, violating procedural statutes. The court reiterated that jurisdiction objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity to avoid cases being unnecessarily delayed. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The complainant’s vehicle was insured, met with an accident, and the insurance claim was rejected on grounds of policy violation related to driver licensing. The vehicle was parked unrepaired, causing additional costs to the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the District Commission’s order as valid, noting the insurance company could not substantiate its claims regarding policy violations or jurisdictional challenges and the claim was rightfully rejected.
Issues: Whether the vehicle’s driver at the accident was correctly identified, and whether the District Commission had proper jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the complainant provided credible evidence that his son was driving with a valid license, countering the insurance company's denial of liability—emphasizing the necessity of timely objection to jurisdiction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case involve an insurance claim denied due to alleged false statements regarding the driver. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented focused on the legitimacy of the district commission's ruling. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on the procedural importance of raising jurisdictional objections at the trial stage. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. conclusion affirmed the district commission's decision as sound. (Para 15) |
Per Say Justice SunitaYadav, President:
This is an appeal by the appellant/opposite party-insurance company against the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 283/2016 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant has been allowed.
2. In short, facts of the case are that the complainant’s Hyundai Verna Car bearing registration number was insured with the opposite party-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 30.10.2015 to 29.10.2016. It is submitted by the complainant that during the insurance cover on 01.11.2015 the subject vehicle near Dewas met with an accident of which intimation was given to the police as also to the insurance company and a claim was filed with the insurance company. The complainant took the vehicle for repairs to Kasliwal Motors who has given an estimate of Rs.7,57,779.42/- The insurance company get the survey of vehicle done, however, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the subject vehicle was being driven by the complainant, who was not having valid driving licence. In fact, the vehicle was being driven by complainant’s son Anmol who on account of nervousness told the name of the complainant on call. It is alleged by the complainant that since the insurance company could not decide the claim the vehicle is still parked with Kasliwal Motors unrepaired, who was demanding Rs.250/- per day as parking charges. It is thus submitted that the complainant is also entitled to get parking charges from the insurance company. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the insurance company approached the District Commission seeking relief.
3. The appellant/opposite party-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that both parties are bound to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy. In fact in intimation about accident given to the call centre, the name of the driver was told as Prakash Chandra Chandani, the complainant. During investigation it was found that there was violation of policy conditions. The complainant has given false statement that at the time of accident, the subject vehicle was being driven by his son Anmol. Though the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,81,415/- but since there was violation of policy condition, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-insurance company to pay Rs.4,81,415/- as assessed by the surveyor with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim till payment. Compensation of Rs.4,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded. Hence this appeal by the insurance company.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party-insurance company argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principle of law. It is further argued that the policy was obtained from Mumbai branch and accident occurred at Dewas and therefore no cause of action arose at Indore and therefore, the District Commission, Indore had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further argued that the District Commission has ignored the fact that in the intimation given to the call centre the name of the driver was mentioned as Prakash Chandra -4-
Chandani who was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The complainant by suppressing the co
