NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. BHIKA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Petitioner herein which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 26.09.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, 'the State Commission ') in appeal no. 225/01 whereby the State Commission setting aside the order of the District Forum has allowed the complaint filed by the Respondent and has directed the Petitioner Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,21,584/ - to the Respondent along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 09.08.99 till realization. Rs.2,000/ - were awarded as costs. FACTS: -

(2.) COMPLAINANT /Respondent got his truck bearing registration No. RJ -19 -G 4637 insured with the Petitioner for the period from 23.6.97 to 22.6.98 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ -. During the validity of the policy, the truck met with an accident on 8.5.98 near Ajmer and sustained damage. An FIR was lodged with the Police Station, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer and intimation was also given to the Petitioner Insurance Company. Respondent got the accidental truck repaired and incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,21,194/ -. Thereafter, Respondent submitted the claim with the Petitioner Insurance Company which was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Insurance Company. Petitioner, on being served, filed its written statement resisting the complaint and justifying the repudiation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, in question did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time of accident. That the driver was possessing a driving licence issued by the Motor Licencing Authority, Bharatpur and on verification from the concerned Transport Authority the same was found to be fake. That there was no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) RESPONDENT , being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed by the impugned order by observing thus: -