Back
Page 1 of 7
R.I. DESAI A/13/1199
Date of filing: 12.04.2013
Date of disposal: 09.03.2021
Duration: 07 Years 10 Months 27 days
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
GUJARAT STATE, AHMEDABAD.
COURT NO: 05
Appeal No. 1199 of 2013
Narbheram Govindpuri Swami
Rampura Math, Mu. Rampura,
Ta. Deesa, Dist: Banaskantha. … Appellant
V/s.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Opp. Indira Bhawan,
Ta. Deesa, Dist: Banaskantha … Respondent
CORAM: Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.
APPEARANCE: Mr. S.G. Shah ld. Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Anal Shah, L.A. for the respondent.
Order by Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.
Judgment
1.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Palanpur on 28.02.2013 in Complaint No. 64 of 2012, the original
complainant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission. For the sake
of the convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their
original nomenclature.
Page 2 of 7
R.I. DESAI A/13/1199
2.To dispose of this appeal, few relevant facts are required to be
mentioned: It is the case of the complainant that the complainant
was having insurance policy of opponent Insurance Company for the
Tractor bearing registration No. GJ-8-J-2316. In the said policy
insured amount was Rs. 2,54,000/- and the effective period of policy
was from 22.05.2010 to 21.05.2011. It is the submission of the
complainant that during the effective period of policy on dated
20.03.2011 the Tractor was met with an accident near Kansari
village and Tractor was badly damaged in the accident. It is further
the submission of the complainant that police authority and
Insurance Company was informed after the incident. Thereafter the
Police have made the Panchnama of the incident place and the
surveyor was also appointed by the Insurance Company. It is further
submitted by the complainant that though so many reminders and
legal notice sent to the opponent Insurance Company, the opponent
Insurance Company neither settle the genuine claim of the
complainant nor repudiate the claim.
3.After many attempts; when no response was received from opponent
Insurance Company and therefore the complainant has filed
aforesaid
consumer
compliant
before
the
learned
District
Page 3 of 7
R.I. DESAI A/13/1199
Commission at Palanpur for deficiency in service and unfair trade
practices of the opponent Insurance Company.
4.After hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after
considering the documents and evidences, the learned District
Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
5.Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned District
Commission, Palanpur the original complainant has filed the present
appeal against the original opponent before this Commission on the
ground stated in the appeal memo.
6.Heard learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Shah for the appellant and learned
Advocate Mr. Anal Shah for the respondent at length. Perused the
record, judgments produced by the appellant and order of the
learned District Commission.
7. First of all learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Shah argued out that as per
Motor Vehicles Act, LMV license holder can drive LMV goods vehicles
as well as LMV transport vehicles but learned District Commission
has erred in deciding that the driver was not having a valid driving
license at the time of accident. Learned Advocate Mr. S.G. Shah
