SHYAMLAL AGRAWAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order dated 14.7.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum for short) in Complaint Case No. 209/2001 whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

(2.) BRIEF facts as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a vehicle, Sumo, bearing number MP 23 GA -0877, for personal use and got the same insured with the opposite party and kept renewing the policy of Insurance. The vehicle was also insured for the period from 17.1.1999 to 16.1.2000. It is specifically averred in the complaint that the vehicle was for personal use of the complainant and his family members. For the sake of convenience, the complainant had appointed Tarun Kumar Pandey, holding valid driving licence, as driver for driving the aforesaid vehicle and directed that none else should be allowed to drive the vehicle. On 8.5.1999, the complainant returned from Bhatapara with the driver at about 8 p.m. and instructed him to come in the morning for going to Jagdalpur. As the driver did not turn up in the morning the complainant had sent a person to enquire about the matter and came to know that the driver had, without permission of the complainant, taken the vehicle to Bhilai in connection with death of his relative. Thereupon the complainant himself went to Bhilai and on inquiry from the driver came to know that some other person had taken the vehicle to some other place. The complainant lodged FIR with the Pandri Police Station, Raipur on 10.5.1999 and there he was told that Tarini Pandey had taken the vehicle to Orissa and had caused an accident and he himself has died in the accident. Pandri Police informed that the Pandri Police could not take cognizance of the offence. The complainant had intimated the insurer and Surveyor M.A. Ramani visited the spot on 14.5.1999 and subsequently filed his report. The complainant had submitted an estimate for Rs. 4,41,026 and repeatedly requested the insurer to disburse the amount. However, the insurer finally repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle was being driven as taxi and the driver did not have valid driving licence. According to the averments of the complaint, the insurer had committed deficiency in service by repudiating the claim, hence the complainant had to file complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) THE opposite party/insurer resisted the case mainly on the plea that were also mentioned in the letter of repudiation i.e., the vehicle was being plied as taxi and the driver Tarini Pandey did not have valid driving licence. It was also averred that the report regarding theft of vehicle was false. The complainant had violated terms of policy and as such was not entitled to any relief and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.