ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. KARAN SINGH RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is insurer's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the District Forum, Rudraprayag in consumer complaint No. 25 of 2007. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant -opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent -complainant within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which the said amount was directed to carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UP -18/0085 (Tata Bus 709). The said vehicle was insured with the appellant -The Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period from 11.6.2005 to 10.6.2006 at an IDV of Rs. 2,00,000. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 27.10.2005 at 6.30 a.m., the insured vehicle met with an accident at Panchpullia, near Karnprayag, District Chamoli and fell in a deep gorge. It was alleged that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by its driver Sh. Bachan Singh, S/o Sh. Fateh Singh, R/o Village Marora Ghoolteer, District Rudraprayag. It was also alleged that in the said accident, the insured vehicle was totally damaged. The complainant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company, which was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 1.6.2007 on the ground that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by Sh. Sunil Singh Rana, who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Rudraprayag.

(2.) THE Insurance Company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that on receipt of the intimation of the accident, Sh. N.P. Sharma was appointed as Surveyor, who submitted his report to the company and on the basis of the said report, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 1.6.2007; that the police has mentioned in the G.D. that at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle was being driven by Sh. Sunil Singh Rana, the son of the complainant; that Sh. Sunil Singh Rana was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle; that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, as such, the claim was not payable and was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.