NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PRITAM GUMBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by order dated 28.4.2011, passed in First Appeal No.14 of 2006 by Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (short, "State Commission"), Petitioner/Opposite Party has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant is owner of vehicle No. UP10 4512 (Mahindra Taxi). The said vehicle was insured with the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.2,81,400/- for the period from 11.01.2003 to 10.01.2004. During the period of insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 15.10.2003 due to some technical fault in the vehicle and fell into a deep gorge and got badly damaged. The intimation of the accident was given to the Petitioner and an FIR was also lodged. On 21.10.2003, the vehicle was inspected by Sh. Balveer Singh Rana, H.C.M.T., Police Line, New Tehri. Petitioner also deputed its surveyor who inspected the vehicle in the absence of the respondent. The respondent asked the petitioner for indemnification of the loss and completed all the formalities. On the oral directions of the petitioner, the respondent got the vehicle towed from the site of the accident and got the vehicle repaired on his own expenses and spent a sum of Rs.1,67,282/- for repair of the vehicle. The bills/cash memos/vouchers were submitted to the petitioner for settlement of the claim. However, petitioner vide their letter dated 08.09.2004 treated the claim of the respondent as "NO CLAIM" without any sufficient ground or reason. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, the respondent filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttarkashi (for short, 'District Forum').

(3.) Petitioner in its written statement pleaded that respondent did not complete the required formalities and the claim of respondent has been repudiated on 8.9.2004 on valid ground. It was also pleaded that surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,839/-. The respondent has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. On the date of the accident, the vehicle was carrying goods in excess of the permitted load. It was also submitted that passengers were being carried in the vehicle and as such, the vehicle was being used in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. No deficiency in service has been made by the petitioner.