NARINDER SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission ") in First Appeal No. 104/2011 and First Appeal No. 328 of 2011, vide which, First Appeal No. 104 of 2011 filed by the respondent/opposite party -New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was allowed, the order passed by the District Forum dated 18.1.2011 was set aside and the complaint filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. Vide the same order, the First Appeal No. 328 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as infructuous.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case are, the petitioner/complainant purchased a Mahindra Pick UP BS -II 4 WD vehicle and got it insured with M/s. New India Assurance Company for the period 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2006. The vehicle was temporary registered for a period of one month, which was to expire on 11.01.2006. On 02.02.2006, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. An intimation about the accident was given to the opposite party, which appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 2,60,845/ - on repair basis. The insurance claim was however, repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that Rajeev Hetta, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident did not possess a valid and effective driving license and also, the vehicle had not been registered after the expiry of the temporary registration certificate on 11.01.2006. The complainant then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla and vide order dated 18.1.2011, his complaint was allowed and the opposite party/respondent was asked to pay 75% of Rs. 4,30,037/ - along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing the complaint. It was observed by the District Forum that the surveyor had estimated the loss to be Rs. 4,13,548.55, but he had not given any reason for reducing the loss to Rs. 2,60,845/ -. The District Forum held that the opposite party/Company cannot escape its liability to indemnify the insured to the entire insurance claim of Rs. 4,30,037/ - on non -standard basis. Against the order of the District Forum, two appeals were filed before the State Commission, one by the opposite party/New India Assurance Co. and other by the complainant. The State Commission accepted the appeal of the respondent/opposite party and set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. The appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed as infructuous. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the vehicle can be driven only after proper registration has been affected. In the instant case, the vehicle was being driven without registration, which is violation of Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.