STAE Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 3.12.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, Union Territory Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being the owner of Mahindra Verito car bearing registration No. HR -03P -7241, got the same insured from the Opposite Party, vide Insurance Policy (Annexure C -2), valid for the period from 18.1.2013 to 17.1.2014, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs. 6,74,403, on payment of premium of Rs. 20,550. It was stated that the said car met with an accident on 24.10.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., on Ambala -Chandigarh highway. The matter was reported to the Police Authorities. DDR No. 7 dated 25.10.2013 (Annexure C -3) was registered at Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar. It was further stated that the complainant got the said car repaired from M/s. Luxmi Switchgears Private Limited (Authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited), for which he paid a sum of Rs. 2,14,500. It was further stated that the complainant, made verbal and written requests to the Opposite Party, to pay the said amount of Rs. 2,14,500 but it (Opposite Party), on the other hand vide letter dated 19.12.2013 (AnnexureC -7) repudiated the claim, on the ground that at the time of accident, he (complainant) was not holding a valid and effective driving licence.

(2.) IT was further stated that, since this fact was not in the knowledge of the complainant, as such, he moved an application for renewal of the old licence (Annexure C -8) which was, ultimately, renewed vide Annexure C -9 w.e.f. 29.5.2013, valid upto 30.6.2018. It was further stated that the genuine claim of the complainant was illegally and arbitrarily repudiated by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Party to pay the amount of Rs. 2,14,500, incurred by him, on the repair of the said vehicle, along with interest -pay compensation, to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation.

(3.) THE Parties led evidence, in support of their case.