Decided on January 07,2020

Ramesh Sagarmal Jindal Respondents


PREM NARAIN,J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 02.05.2019 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad ('the State Commission') in FA no. 1235 of 2014.
(2.) The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the respondent's truck met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy and the claim was filed by stating that Harkul Singh was driving the truck who has an endorsement in his licence for driving the hazardous goods. An FIR was lodged, whereas the police filed the charge-sheet against Mr Bhawani Singh, the accused, as driver. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the grounds that Bhawani Singh was the driver at the time of the accident and there is no endorsement in the licence of Mr Bhawani Singh to drive the hazardous goods. A consumer complaint bearing no. 305 of 2012 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhuj, Kutch ('the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the same grounds as given in the repudiation letter. However, the District Forum has allowed the complaint. The operative portion of the District Forum's order reads as under: "The complaint of the plaintiff is allowed as under. The defendant is hereby directed to pay the plaintiff Rs.1,23,483/- as per the report of the surveyor, and Rs.1825/- paid to the surveyor as fee within one month from the date of this order, and if the said amount is not paid within one month, the amount will have to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of this order and also to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation towards the physical and mental harassment that the plaintiff has suffered and Rs.3000/- as cost of the application"?.
(3.) The insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission has dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 02.05.2019. The State Commission have taken the ground that the truck was damaged from the driver's side and there was serious injury to Mr Harkul Singh and there was no injury to Mr Bhawani Singh. Both the fora below have gone by the common sense as the truck was damaged on the front side of the driver seat and the person driving the vehicle may have been injured, therefore, both the fora below have decided that the vehicle was being driven by Mr Harkul Singh at the time of the accident who had the relevant endorsement in the driving licence, therefore, the claim was allowed. Learned counsel states that the orders cannot be passed based on common sense, rather it is to be based on evidence and the only evidence is that the police after their investigation, charge sheeted Bhawani Singh, as he was driving the truck at the time of accident. Thus, the orders of the fora below are not based on actual evidence.;

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