NIRMALA KOTHARI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
LAWS(SC)-2020-3-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 04,2020

Nirmala Kothari Appellant
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. ANURADHA KEJRIWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2021-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
NEHA VS. S.D.ROCKY [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-232] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. GITANJALI SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-202] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. USHA TANEJA [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH DEBNATH VS. URMILA PATHAK [LAWS(GAU)-2022-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. P. M. MOIDEEN @ MOHAMMED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-266] [REFERRED TO]
NARSIN BEGUM VS. MR. CHANDESWAR RAY [LAWS(ORI)-2022-3-28] [REFERRED TO]


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.