STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 / 2016 United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Manager Regional office, Kaulagarh, Dehradun ……Appellant / Opposite Party Versus Smt. Amrita Devi W/o Late Sh. Roshan Singh Bhandari R/o Village Gangau, P.O. Bheera Patti Choprakot Tehsil Thalisain, District Pauri Garhwal ….…Respondent / Complainant Sh. J.K. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant None for Respondent Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. Bhagwat Singh Manral, Member Dated: 25/05/2022

ORDER

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

This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment dated

29.06.2016 passed by the learned District Commission (now District Commission), Pauri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 29 of 2012 styled as Smt. Amrita Devi vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein and whereby the District Commission was pleased to allow the complaint of the complainant – respondent by directing the appellant – insurance company to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) alongwith interest @6% per annum.

2. According to the complaint, the vehicle bearing registration No. UK12-TA-0025 ‘Max’ was registered in the name of Late Sh. Roshan Singh Bhandari (deceased husband of the complainant) and was insured with policy No. 081500/31/09/01/00002979 with the opposite party – Insurance Company for the insured amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) in case of death of the driver / owner in the accident. It is further alleged in the complaint that on 02.09.2010 at 3p.m. the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident near about 6km. ahead towards Village Pafdiyada and the husband of the complainant, who was driving the said vehicle at that time, has expired on the spot; the insured vehicle was also badly damaged. After several requests and the legal notice, the opposite party – Insurance Company did not pay the insured amount to the complainant, hence, the consumer complaint was brought by the complainant for getting the insured amount from the opposite party –

Insurance Company.

3. In its written statement, the insurance company – appellant has averred that the present complaint is wholly misconceiving, groundless and unsustainable in law, therefore, is liable to be dismissed; the dispute raised by the complainant in the complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the said Act. The complainant – respondent did not produce the relevant documents, i.e. driving licence, fitness, R.C., permit in respect of the insured vehicle before the appellant and the driving license in question of the deceased driver was issued without hill endorsement by the registering authority and the deceased – driver had no permission to drive upon the hill road, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of invalid driving licence of the driver.

4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence adduced by both the parties, the District Commission has passed the impugned judgment against which the appeal in hand was preferred before us.

5. As per the order dated 16.02.2022, this Commission has passed the order to hear the appeal ex-parte against the respondent on account of the absence of complainant – respondent, hence, this appeal was heard ex-parte against the respondent.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records alongwith documents and evidence available before us. 7. It is an admitted fact that the insured vehicle met with an accident on the alleged date, which was being driven by the driver (deceased husband of the complainant). It is also undisputed that the registered vehicle was insured with the answering opposite party – appellant and there was an effective and valid insurance policy issued by the appellant to the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of accident on the ill-fated date. Learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any question regarding the validity of the documents of the insured ve