STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 188 / 2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Regional Manager Regional office, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun ……Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Smt. Makani Devi W/o Late Sh. Sher Singh Sajwan R/o Gram Lasi, Post office Chandra Shekhar Sain Patti Dhungmandar, Tehri Garhwal ….…Respondent / Complainant Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel for Respondent Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. Bhagwat Singh Manral, Member Dated: 21/01/2022

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):

The present appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated

04.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 12 of 2013 titled as Smt. Makani Devi vs. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., wherein the learned District Consumer Forum was pleased to allow the complaint of the complainant-respondent directing the appellant- Insurance Company to pay the assured sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Thousand only) alongwith Rs. 500/- as legal expenses with simple interest @7% from the date of complaint till the actual date of payment.

2. Briefly stated, an accident took place on 31.07.2008, as a result of which the vehicle No. UA07-Q-4733 owned by Sh. Sher Singh Sajwan (complainant’s husband) was badly damaged causing the death of Sh. Sher Singh Sajwan; the above mentioned vehicle was insured with the appellant – insurance company with third party liabilities w.e.f. 29.02.2008 to 28.02.2009 vide Policy No. 32197/31/07/01/00001076. It is alleged that inspite of several requests and notice dated 10.12.2012 of complainant’s advocate to the insurance company, her claim was neither allowed nor gave any reply, therefore, the District Consumer Forum was pleased to allow her complaint directing the insurance company – opposite party to pay Rs. 3,20,000/-for damages of the vehicle, Rs. 2,00,000/- as insured amount alongwith a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for mental agony with compound interest @12% quarterly rest from 31.07.2008.

3. In its written statement, the insurance company – opposite party admitted the fact of insurance policy stating the claim was filed after the lapse of 5 years from the date of unfortunate event, therefore, no liabilities arose for the alleged payment on the part of insurance company. It is further narrated that the driver of the above vehicle was not holding a valid Driving License as he was not authorized to ply the vehicle on hill route, besides it, the name of driver in the accident case was alleged as Sh. Mahaveer Prasad, but Driving License is in the name of Sh. Mahaveer Pal, so there is no liability to be fastened towards the insurance company to pay the claimed amount to the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Having aggrieved the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the learned District Consumer Forum has committed manifest error of law in wrongly appreciating evidence contrary to the facts and disregarding the defense evidence; the impugned judgment is one sided biased judgment without going to the depth of the matter, it is without justification and not sustainable in law. It is also contended that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company and the petition was hopelessly time barred. It is narrated in the appeal that the liability of the appellant is not covered by the conditions and provisions of the policy; the accident occurred in the hill region of Tehri Garhwal, but the Driving License was not endorsed for hill route driving, so the learned District Consumer Forum has failed to consider that the appellant was not liable for payment and there was no basis for the sum awarded by the District Consumer Forum, it is not a reasoned order and is based on conjunctures and surmises, therefore, the appeal should be al