JAGMAL SINGH YADAV Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is directed against order dated 28th September, 2001, passed by District Forum (Central) Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.817/2001, entitled Shri Jagmal Singh Yadav V/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant, Shri Jagmal Singh Yadav, had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that his Maruti Car, bearing Registration No. DL-3c-L-4773, insured with respondent Insurance Company for Rs.2,09,314/-, met with an accident on 19th December, 1998, at about 10.45 p. m. It was stated that at the time of the accident the car was being driven by one Shri Ranbir Sharma, a friend of the appellant, and the appellant was sitting by his side. Since the car was insured with the respondent Insurance Company, the appellant preferred his claim under the insurance policy, but the claim, so preferred by the appellant, was repudiated by the respondent Insurance Company, vide letter dated 25th June, 1999, on the ground that the car in question at the time of accident was being driven by the complainant and not by his friend Shri Ranbir Sharma and that the appellant, who was driving the car in question at the time of the alleged accident, was not holding a valid licence. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, in nutshell, was that the repudiation of his claim by the Insurance Company was illegal and unlawful. It was prayed that the respondent Insurance Company be directed to refund the amount spent by the appellant on the repairs of the car in question, together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The appellant had also claimed a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and other expenses to the tune of Rs.13,000/-.

(3.) The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent Insurance Company and in the reply/written version filed on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company, a preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the complaint filed by the appellant was misconceived because the respondent was not guilty of any 'deficiency in service'. On merits it was stated that soon after receipt of information/claim from the end of the appellant, the respondent Insurance Company appointed an Investigator/surveyor by name Shri S. K. Rathee who after investigating the matter submitted his report dated 19th March, 1999, stating therein that at the time of accident, the appellant himself was on the steering wheel of the car in question. It was stated that the claim preferred by the appellant has been rightly repudiated on the ground that at the time of the accident the car in question was being driven by the appellant who was not holding an effective and valid driving licence.