STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution: 30.04.2015 Date of final hearing: 22.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.09.2022 First Appeal No. 66 / 2015 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Branch Office, Mall Road, Chaughanpata, District Almora Through The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office, 1^st Floor, 4-B, Sachdeva Colony Opposite Nainital Bank Ltd., Haridwar Road, Dehradun Through its Senior Division Manager (Through: Sh. S.P. Singh, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS Sh. Chandan Singh Rawat S/o Late Sh. Mohan Singh Rawat R/o Village Balana, P.O. Pantkotali Tehsil Ranikhet, District Almora None for the Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. B.S. Manral, Member

ORDER

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

This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated

20.03.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Almora (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 14 of 2013 titled as Sh. Chandan Singh Rawat vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein and whereby the learned District Commission has allowed the complaint.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission, Almora alleging that he has purchased a Maruti Alto car bearing registration No. UK01-TA-0782, which was insured with the appellant – Insurance Company for the period from 06.05.2011 to 05.05.2012 at an IDV of Rs. 1,90,000/-. It is further alleged that during validity of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 30.05.2011 at 8:00p.m. near Jalikhan, Ranikhet and fell into a ditch and got completely damaged. The respondent gave intimation to the insurance company, who got the vehicle surveyed. Thereafter, the respondent spent a sum of Rs. 2,65,000/- in repair of the vehicle. The surveyor has inspected the said vehicle and submitted a report, wherein he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,64,792/-. The claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant – insurance company on the ground that there had been no Hill Endorsement in the driving license of the driver, so as to authorize him to drive the vehicle on hill roads. Thus, there had been deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. In such circumstances, the respondent – complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. The appellant – insurance company has submitted its written statement before the District Commission concerned, pleading that at the time of accident, the insured vehicle was being plied against the terms and conditions of the policy; there was no hill endorsement in the driving license of the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident, hence, the claim was not payable and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on

20.03.2015, whereby it is held as under:-

“(cid:231)Lrqr ifjokn Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh fn vksfj;aVy ba”;ksjsla dEiuh fyfeVsM] vYeksM+k dks vknsf”kr fd;k tkrk gS fd o s bl fu.kZ;kns”k ds ,d ekg ds Hkhrj :0 & 2]03]000-00 dk Hkqxrku ifjoknh dks djasA ,slk u djus dh n”kk esa ifjoknh mDr /kujkf”k :0&2]03]000-00 ij ifjokn (cid:231)Lrqr djus ds fnukad 2-7- 2013 l s okLrfod Hkqxrku dh frfFk rd 6 çfr”kr okf’kZd dh nj ls lk/kkj.k C;kt ikus dk Hkh vf/kdkjh gksxkA”

5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission, Almora, the opposite party – insurance company, as appellant, has preferred the present appeal contending that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by the driver Sh. Durga Singh and as per Form No. 54 from the Licencing Authority, Haldwani, it has been clearly mentioned that the driver Sh. Durga Singh was authorized to drive motorcycle plus motorcar only and his driving lice