NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. SUNIL SOOD
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-10-15
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 30,2009

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
SUNIL SOOD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GEL, J. - (1.) FACTS as they emerge from the record of this appeal are that vehicle which is subject matter of this complaint met with accident before it had been registered and or had obtained route permit whereunder it could be plied as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder.
(2.) VEHICLE in question was purchased in the end of November 2002 for Rs. 5,07,300 and was insured for this sum with the appellant from 2.12.2002 to 1.12.2003. At about 8.00 p.m. on 7.12.2002 while it was on its way to Palampur from Alampur, according to respondent it met with accident. This was a case of total loss. After accident appellant was informed. With a view to assess the loss of the vehicle in question, surveyor was deputed by the appellant. Though the damage caused was beyond repair, still at the insistence of the appellant, respondent got the vehicle repaired by spending Rs.2,16,875. Despite these repairs, vehicle was not functional and as a last resort, the documents of the vehicle were deposited by him with the RTO and ETO at Dharamshala. This according to the appellant was the proof of the vehicle in question non -functional.
(3.) IN this background respondent asked the appellant to settle his claim within the statutory period, but without any consequence. Further according to him requisite documents were provided by him to the appellant. Instead of settling the claim, according to the respondent, appellant tried to unnecessarily delay the matter, and did not pay the amount spent by him. In this background alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, complaint No. 271/2005 was filed by the respondent. When put to notice complaint was contested mainly on three grounds: (a) that the driver at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence whereby he was licensed to drive the vehicle in question; (b) that the truck was being plied without valid route permit in violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as also the terms and conditions of the insurance policy subject to which the appellant had undertaken to indemnify the vehicle in question; and (c) that the vehicle in question was overloaded keeping in view its laden and unladen weight as per its documents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.