NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NAFEES AHMED S/O SH AMIR AHMED
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Nafees Ahmed S/O Sh Amir Ahmed
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is insurer's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 03 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 4,16,500/ - to the respondent complainant together with interest @6% p.a. pendente lite and future and Rs. 3,000/ - towards litigation expenses. The complainant was directed to hand over the documents of the vehicle / submit letter of subrogation to the insurance company. It was also directed that the salvage of the vehicle shall remain with the insurance company.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the owner of mini bus bearing registration No. UA04 -C -3295. The said bus was insured with the appellant The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 13.10.2008 to 12.10.2009 for sum of Rs. 4,25,000/ -.
On 27.12.2008 at about 12:00 p.m., when the bus was going from Haldwani to Babiyar, it fell in a deep gorge near Churigarh on account of breaking of the patta of the bus. In the said accident, the driver and one passenger of the bus died, while other passengers sustained injuries. It is alleged that in the said accident, the insured vehicle was totally damaged. The information of the accident was given to the Naib Tehsildar, Dhari and the insurance company was also informed about the accident. The insurance company appointed surveyor, but the claim of the complainant was not settled by the insurance company. It is further alleged that at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by Sh. Surendra Singh S/o Sh. Govind Singh, who was having a valid driving licence. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by its conductor. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital.
(3.) THE insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on investigation, it was found that at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by its conductor, who was not holding a valid driving licence, which fact was proved in the Magisterial Enquiry; that the insured has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and, as such, the claim was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 14.07.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.