NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAROJINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 22.5.2004 passed by the District Forum, Pauri Garhwal whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and the repudiation order passed by the insurance company was quashed. The insurance company was further directed to settle the claim of the complainant within one month.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UP06 -5405. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party from 7.11.2001 to 6.11.2002 vide policy No. 321906/31/120020. It is alleged that on 12.8.2002 at 6:30 a.m., the vehicle met with an accident and fell in the khud. The vehicle was brought out of the khud and was taken to Kotdwar for repairs where the vehicle kept standing for one and a half months. The repairs were conducted by Chand Sales Corporation, Kotdwar. A sum of Rs. 84,628 was spent in repairs, which were paid by the complainant and all vouchers were submitted to the insurance company. When the vehicle was ready, the authorised representative of the opposite party inspected the vehicle and took photographs. A sum of Rs. 8,000 was spent in toeing the vehicle. But the insurance company did not settle the claim. On 6.5.2003 she sent a letter to the insurance company but her claim was not settled, thereafter she filed the complaint before the learned Forum.

(3.) THE insurance company/appellant filed written statement and admitted the accident. In additional pleas, it is pleaded that the information regarding repudiation of claim was given to the complainant on 9.9.2003. Sri Rawat was appointed as investigator to investigate the matter. On inquiry, it was found that the driver of the vehicle Sri Ishwar Singh was authorised to drive only light motor vehicle but the jeep was a goods vehicle which was authorized for sitting of 3 persons including driver. The vehicle was being driven against the terms and conditions of permit and R. C. On the date of accident, there were 10 persons sitting in the vehicle. Therefore the claim of the complainant was repudiated and there is no deficiency in their services.