UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. INDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 23.10.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttaranchal, Dehradun dismissing appeal against the order dated 4.6.2002 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to pay Rs.34,657/-to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Truck bearing registration No.UP-07D-0169 owned by the respondent was insured with the petitioner for the period from 1.6.1999 to }1.5.2000. On 29.11.1999 around 7 p.m. when the truck reached Village Biwipur, a tanker bearing registration No.HR-39-3609 coming from opposite direction collided with it as a result whereof truck was badly damaged and driver also died at the spot. On being informed of , accident on 2.12.1999, the petitioner appointed surveyors. On claim not being settled, alleging deficiency in service, the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. Truck having been insured with the petitioner and it having met with accident on 20.11.1999 was not disputed. However, it was alleged that pursuant to the last reminder dated 21.3.2000, the respondent by the letter dated 24.3.2000 informed that the name of driver on the truck was Sharafat and his driving licence no. was 17551. In pursuance of the letter dated 24.3.2000 sent for verification of said licence by the petitioner, the Licensing Authority, Haridwar informed that driving licence No. 17551 was issued in the name of Mohd. Salim s/o Allah Rakha and it was valid upto 15.9.2001, Claim made was, thus repudiated on ground of Sharafat not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was further alleged that Sanjay Gupta was appointed as preliminary surveyor while Mohit Aggarwal as final surveyor. Despite repeated requests, the respondent did not make available the driving licence to the surveyors. District Forum allowed the complaint in the manner noticed above and appeal by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , while partly accepting revision, aforesaid orders passed by fora below are modified to the extent that petitioner will be liable to pay 25992.75 to the respondent. No order to cost.