H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA First Appeal No. : 30/2020 Date of Presentation : 19.02.2020 Order Reserved on : 13.12.2023 Date of Order : 21.12.2023 _____

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bhagra Niwas, The Mall Shimla, HP through Deputy Manager Divisional Office, 3^rd Floor, Block No.7, SDA Complex, Kasumpati, Shimla-9, H.P.

…… Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus Usha Devi W/o Late Sh. Baldev Singh, R/o Village Dokolar, P.O.

office, Shingla, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P.

…Respondent/complainant.

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Mr.R.K. Verma, Member Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr.Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

18.12.2019 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P, in Consumer Complaint No.96/2017 titled Usha Devi Versus New India Assurance.

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Brief facts of Case

2. Brief facts of the case are that husband of the complainant namely Baldev Singh (since deceased) purchased a Bolero Pick Up and insured with the opposite party/insurance company from 19.10.2015 to 18.10.2016. The deceased Baldev Singh (husband of complainant) also obtained personal accident insurance from the opposite party/insurance company at the time of insuring the vehicle in question. On 13.03.2016, the vehicle in question met with an accident at place Dakolar, Tehsil Rampur, in which Baldev Singh, (husband of the complainant), who was driving the vehicle, died. Intimation was given to the police and FIR was registered at police station Rampur and the deceased at the time of accident was holding valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. The opposite party/insurance company instead of settling the claim repudiated the claim vide letter dated 16.12.2016 on the ground that the deceased Baldev Singh owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving license. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party/insurance company. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The complaint so filed was opposed by the opposite party/insurance company by filing reply and did not deny the fact that the deceased Baldev Singh (husband of the complainant) was registered owner of the vehicle in question, which was insured with the opposite party/insurance company from 19.10.2015 to 18.10.2016. It is also not denied that the deceased has also taken personal accidental policy from the opposite party/insurance company at the time of getting the vehicle in question insured. On receipt of intimation, surveyor namely Dinesh Kumar was appointed to conduct the survey, who assessed the loss caused to the vehicle amounting to Rs.2,62,016/- on repair basis vide his report dated 29.06.2016. The opposite party/insurance company also appointed Mr.Kamal Narain, Retd. HPS to investigate the claim, who found that the deceased Baldev Singh was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question, which act and conduct of the opposite party/insurance company does not amount to deficiency in service. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. No rejoinder was filed on behalf of the complainant. 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing learned counsel of the parties, learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

9. Learned counsel of the appellant/insurance company has submitted that in the instance case the dispute is pertaining to th