H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

First Appeal No. : 245/2024 Date of Presentation : 03.10.2024 Order Reserved on : 25.11.2025 Date of Order : 01.12.2025 _____

Gian Singh Chauhan S/o Sh. Tek Chand, R/o Village and P.O.

Leswin, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, H.P.

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Dalhousie Road Pathankot, Tehsil and District Pathankot through its Divisional Manager.

……Respondent/Opposite Party.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member.

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Appellant: Mr.Tek Chand, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr.H.C. Sharma, Advocate.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

24.07.2024 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission,

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

Chamba, in Consumer Complaint No.99/2022 titled Sh. Gian Limited, whereby, complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is registered owner of vehicle i.e. Tipper bearing registration No.HP-44-2894 which was insured with the opposite party/insurance company w.e.f. 04.01.2021 to 03.01.2022 for a sum of ₹ 8,34,240/-. On 21.05.2021, the vehicle in question met with an accident at place Tissa Bridge due to mechanical fault. Intimation of accident was given to police as well as insurance company. The insurance company appointed a surveyor who inspected the vehicle and after assessing the loss submitted his report to the insurance company. Thereafter, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.07.2022 on the ground that driver was managed/planted at the time of accident and the driving licence of original driver Pawan Kumar was not produced by the complainant. It is alleged that Sh. Naresh Kumar was driving the vehicle in question and his driving licence is placed on record. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

3. The opposite party/insurance company contested the complaint by filing reply and stated that the complainant in connivance with the police had planted Sh. Naresh Kumar as driver, but the fact is that at the time of accident Sh. Pawan Kumar was driving the vehicle in question, who died in the accident. As per RFSL report, driver Pawan Kumar had consumed 91.57 mg% alcohol at the time of accident. The insurance company had deputed an Investigator who investigated the case and found that Sh. Pawan Kumar was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and died in the said accident. Sh. Naresh Kumar was not the driver of the vehicle in question. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. As such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party/ insurance company. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply, wherein he denied the objections taken by the opposite party and further reasserted the averments as made in the complaint.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing learned counsel of the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

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

8. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.

9. Learned counsel of the appellant/complainant has submitted that complainant is registered owner of vehicle (Tipper) in question which met with an accident on 21.05.2021 during the existence of the policy. He has further submitted that at the time of accident Sh. Naresh Kumar was driving the vehicle in question, whereas, helper Sh. Pa