STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/5/A/273/2022 (Against the Order dated 06 February 2025 in Complaint No.

SC/5/CC/21/2017 of the State Commission Uttarakhand)

National Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - B.M. office Rajpur Road,D.dun through Divi.

Manager, Divisional office 1-B Govindpuri Ranipur Mor, Haridwar through its Auth. Sig. Regional Office National Inss.

Co. Ltd. Jai Plaza 56, Rajpur Road,NCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

Versus Sh. Rishi Kandpal .......Respondent(s)

PRESENT ADDRESS - s/o late Sh. Mahanand Kandpal r/o Bal Sansthapak Bal Maitri Sansthan PO. Kothar, Teh.

YamkeshwarNCDRC,UTTARAKHAND.

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MS. KUMKUM RANI, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. B. S. MANRAL, MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT :

Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia (Advocate)

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

Nemo Dated: 06 February 2025 FINAL ORDER ORDER (Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pauri Garhwal (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 21 of 2017, styled as Sh. Rishi Kandwal Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, wherein and whereby the consumer complaint was allowed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, as set out in the consumer complaint, are, as such that the respondent / complainant is the registered owner of Maruti Omni 8 Seater / Maruti Omni E MPI bearing registration No. UK-07AY-1094, which was insured with the appellant / opposite party vide policy No. 35101031156137015022 w.e.f. 12.07.2015 to 11.07.2016. The said policy was a Package Policy (Private Vehicle). The insured vehicle met with an accident on dated 12.04.2016 at about 3:00 p.m. near Kairkhal on Kandi-Laxman Jhula Road, District Pauri Garhwal and the insured vehicle fell in a deep ditch and got badly damaged. The complainant obtained the estimate of loss and lodged claim with the insurance company as per the estimate of loss to the tune of Rs. 2,80,108/-. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company, stating that the insurance policy was issued in the name of Sh. Rishi Kandwal, whereas the vehicle was registered in the name of The Balmaitri Shishu Sansthan. It was also stated in the repudiation letter that the fitness of the vehicle has expired on 30.07.2015 and thereafter the vehicle was not fit to be plied on road. It was stated in the consumer complaint that it was the duty of the insurer to see the name of registered owner of the vehicle in the registration certificate, therefore, the insurance company has no right to repudiate the clam on the ground of clerical error. By repudiation of the claim by the insurer, the complainant had to suffer mental, physical and financial agony. With the above allegations, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant / opposite party before the District Commission, it was admitted that the insured vehicle was registered in the name of The Balmaitri Shishu Sansthan, whereas the insurance policy was taken in the name of Sh. Rishi Kandwal, therefore, there was variation in the name of insured and the registered owner of the vehicle. It was also stated that the insured vehicle in question was a private vehicle, but the same was being used for commercial purpose at the time of occurrence and the vehicle was being used for taking the school children for hire and reward for school promotion activity, therefore, there was a clear- cut violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It was further stated that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurer in repudiating the claim and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned District Commission, after