ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. JASPAL SINGH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will govern disposal of Appeal No. 112/08 which has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Durg and also Appeal No. 97/08, which has been preferred by Additional Regional Transport Office, Rajnandgaon, challenging the same impugned order dated 1.2.08 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 365/07, whereby own damage claim of respondent No. 1, Jaspal Singh Bhatia was allowed and the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay Rs. 84,000, as per conditions of insurance policy to the complainant/respondent No. l along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 9.10.2007 on this amount. In addition to it Rs. 7,000 were also ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company by way of compensation for mental harassment. Appellant/Regional Transport Officer has also been directed to pay Rs. 3,000 as compensatipn to the complainant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that vehicle No. CG -04 -ZC -6699, of ownership of the complainant/respondent No. l was insured by appellant/Insurance Company for the period from 16.11.2006 to 15.11.2006. On 9.1.2007, the vehicle was damaged in a road accident, while it was parked by the driver near the road on account of certain defects in its engine and the driver went to call mechanic to take care of the engine. The incident was reported by the owner to the Insurance Company and then a Surveyor was appointed. Surveyor assessed the loss and submitted its report before Insurance Company. Insurance Company demanded particulars regarding driving licence of the driver and when such particulars were provided then the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that driving licence of the driver was fake and forged. Then complainant filed complaint before the District Forum, against both the appellants of these two appeals.

(3.) IT has been averred by the Insurance Company in the written version that driver Ranjeet was not having a valid licence at the time of accident. It has also been denied that the vehicle was damaged when it was parked near the road. It has been specifically pleaded that the accident happened because of the collusion of the insured vehicle with some other vehicle or was on account of driving of the vehicle by the driver Ranjeet?