BANWARI LAL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -complainant Banwari Lal has come up in appeal against the order dated 25.7.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari whereby the complaint filed by him against the respondent -opposite party has been dismissed.

(2.) THE complainant had insured his Canter bearing Registration No. HR -47 -0 -7372 under policy No. 354103/31/03/02995 on 6.1.2004 with the opposite party. On 24.4.2004 while saving a cow (Neel Gai) near Sehgal Factory, Dharuhera his canter hit the bus as a result of which extensive damage was caused to it. First Information Report was lodged with the Police of Police Station, Dharuhera, District Rewari. At the time of accident according to the complainant Vijay Pal was driving the vehicle. The complainant informed the opposite party about the accident. The matter was investigated and it was found that incident had taken place on 14.4.2004 but the D.D.R. was lodged on 24.4.2004. It has further come during the investigation that the vehicle was being driven by Ram Pal, Helper at the time of accident and not by Vijay Pal. The Surveyor Mr. R.K. Kheterpal, Mechanical Engineer Government approved, deputed by the opposite party assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 92,328. However, the complainant has committed the breach of the terms of the policy because Ram Pal did not possess any driving licence at the time of accident. Accordingly, the claim was repudiated. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite party the present complaint was filed. The District Forum accepted the version of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint as per order dated 25.7.2006. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the appellant -complainant has been heard at length. During the course of arguments it has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the District Forum without application of mind dismissed the complaint on trivial grounds. It was further contended by him that even if it is taken for the sake of arguments that the vehicle was being driven by Ram Pal, still it has not been proved by the opposite party that the accident had taken place due to his negligent driving and for that reason it cannot be construed that the terms and conditions of the policy have been violated. There is hardly any merit in the submission made. The reason for this conclusion are as under :