SEEMA GARG Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 11.02.2013, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short 'the State Commission') in appeal no. FA/12/403, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Seema Garg, vide which, while allowing appeal filed by the opposite party/respondent, Insurance Company, the order dated 08.06.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh in case no. 95/2010, allowing the complaint in question, was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a trailer vehicle bearing registration no. CG-13A/9924 was insured with the Opposite Party/Insurance Company, vide policy no. 153300/31/2009/1130 from 05.05.2009 to 04.05.2010. The said vehicle was damaged in a road accident on 29.06.2009. A surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company to assess the loss. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim, saying that the vehicle was not being driven by a person having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and hence, there was a material violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver, Mukesh Kumar Sahu was holder of driving licence to drive motorcycle, LMV etc., but the permission to drive transport vehicle and heavy goods vehicle was given w.e.f. 09.11.2009, whereas the accident took place on 29.06.2009. The present petitioner filed the consumer complaint in question, which was allowed by the District Forum, vide their order dated 08.06.2012. The District Forum ordered that the petitioner was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,77,660/- towards vehicle repair bill and after deducting an amount of Rs. 32,811/-, already received from the opposite party as compensation, opposite party was required to pay Rs. 1,44,849/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and compensation of Rs. 4,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation. An appeal was filed by the Opposite Party/Insurance Company before the State Commission against this order, and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 11.02.2013. The State Commission held that the driver of the complainant was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of incident and hence, there was a material violation of the conditions of the policy. Learned State Commission also observed that the amount of Rs. 32,811/- had in fact, been given by the complainant to the Insurance Company for getting the vehicle insured for Rs. 7,50,000/-. The State Commission dismissed the consumer complaint in question. The present revision petition has been filed against this order.

(3.) At the time of admission hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the petitioner informed the respondent/Insurance company immediately after the said incident and submitted all relevant documents to the surveyor. The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,77,660/-. There was no wilful breach or violation of law on the part of the insured. It was the duty of the insurer to prove that there was wilful violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver was already having licence to drive motorcycle, LMV etc., but the endorsement to drive transport vehicle was given w.e.f. 09.11.2009. Learned counsel stated that since the policy had been obtained after depositing requisite amount of premium, the claim should not have been repudiated.