JUDGEMENT
KRISHNA MURARI,J. -
(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The Appellant/Complainant, Nirmala Kothari's husband, Vinod Ray Kothari was owner of a Hyundai Elantra vehicle, registration no.
RJ36CA 0111, which was insured with the Insurance Company for a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- .
(3.) The said vehicle met with an accident with a tractor bearing no. HR38K 3216, on 06.06.2010 as a result of which the Appellant's
husband, Vinod Ray Kothari, who was the owner of the car, and his
daughter died and the vehicle was damaged. The driver of the vehicle,
Dharmendra Singh Chauhan got an FIR registered with the police. The
Respondent/ Insurance Company, on intimation having been given to
them, appointed a spot surveyor, and also a regular surveyor to carry
out survey in the matter, but the claim was rejected by them vide their
letter dated 28.03.2011. The Respondent/ Insurance Company stated in
the repudiation letter that the driver Dharmendra Singh Chauhan did not
have a proper driving licence at the time of the accident. The licence
produced by him, alleged to have been procured from the office of the
licencing authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi could not be verified, as the
concerned officer of the transport department returned their letter with
the endorsement that the record pertaining to the said licence was not
available. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Respondent/ Insurance
Company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint, seeking
directions to the Respondent/Insurance Company to pay the Insured
declared value (IDV) i.e. a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and
Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost. The District Forum vide their order dated
30.05.2012, allowed the said consumer complaint and directed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,57,500/- to the complainant, as
assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and cost of
litigation of Rs. 2,500/-. Being aggrieved against the said order of the
District Forum, the Respondent/ Insurance Company challenged the
same by way of appeal before the State Commission, but the said
appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.09.2015,
the Respondent/ Insurance Company came before National
Commission by way of the Revision Petition No. 2835/2015.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.