- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 1.6.2006, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Durg (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum' for short) in Complaint No. 25/2005 whereby the learned District Forum had allowed the complaint and had directed accordingly.
(2.) THE facts not presently in dispute are: that the complainant/respondent had obtained an insurance policy for her Ashoka Leyland truck, bearing No. C.G. -09 C -0811 for a period from 11.10.2002 to 10.10.2003 under policy dated 10.10.2002 bearing No. 31/02/05306. It is also not in dispute that during subsistence of insurance, the said vehicle met with an accident on 4.9.2003 at Chichola near Rajnandgaon. On intimation to the insurer, survey was conducted and subsequently the claim filed by the insured was repudiated on the ground of violation of the terms of policy as the driver was not having valid licence.
(3.) AS per averments in the complaint, the insurer was duly intimated of the accident on the same day i.e. 4.9.2003. FIR was also lodged with the police. Sri C.P. Sai was appointed Surveyor who assessed the damage and intimated the insurer accordingly. Subsequently, the vehicle was inspected by another Surveyor at the garage. He also gave his report. Thereafter, the complainant got the truck repaired and had to spend Rs. 1,12,655 (Rs. one lakh twelve thousand six hundred and fifty five) towards the repairs as aforesaid. It was further averred in the complaint that the complainant had told the insurer that as told by the driver, the drivers generally keep two licences in order to avoid harassment by the police. Subsequently, the complainant had presented the other licence of the driver and the same was duly verified by the insurer and was found to be valid. However, the OP/insurer did not decide the claim of the complainant for a long time hence legal notice was issued on 16.8.2004. Vide their reply dated 15.12.2004 the insurer had repudiated the claim on the ground that the licence presented earlier was found to be fake. It was further averred that by not paying the claim amount the insurer has committed deficiency in service, hence the complainant prayed for the claim amount together with interest and cost, etc. The opposite party resisted the claim mainly on the ground that the licence of the driver was found to be fake, hence the claim could not be allowed and was repudiated. It was averred that though the Surveyor had assessed the damage at Rs. 97,731 (Rs. Ninety seven thousand seven hundred and thirty one) yet the amount was payable only in case the terms of policy were complied with. It was further averred that since driving licence presented earlier was found to be fake, it amounted to breach of terms of policy. It was further averred that though the complainant had subsequently presented another licence and the said licence was found to be valid yet the claim could not be paid as the licence verified earlier was found to be fake, the complainant was not entitled to receive any compensation. The opposite party also denied the allegation of deficiency in service and averred that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.;