NAVEEN VERMA Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, "the State Commission") dated 9th October, 2012 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Shimla and dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant being owner of Tata LPT 407 Truck got it insured with the respondent/opposite party. Insurance policy was valid for the period w.e.f. 15.1.2007 to 14.1.2008. On 2nd July, 2007 the truck while on its way from Parwanu to Shogi met with an accident resulting in damage. The accident was brought to the knowledge of the opposite party. The respondent/opposite party deputed one Vinod Bhan, who visited the spot of accident, inspected the vehicle and advised the complainant to shift the vehicle to the workshop for repairs. The complainant shifted the vehicle to the workshop for repair where it was again inspected and the loss was assessed by another Surveyor deputed by the opposite party Company. Despite that the OP Company failed to settle the claim. The complainant, thus served the OP Company with a legal notice dated 27th September, 2007. The OP Company, however, vide letter dated 27th September, 2007 repudiated the claim for the reason that at the time of accident the subject vehicle was being driver without route permit, valid fitness certificate and proper registration. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the petitioner raised a consumer dispute in District Forum, Shimla.

(3.) Respondent/opposite party in its written statement took the plea that the insurance claim of the petitioner was rightly repudiated for the reason that the vehicle was being run without a valid route permit, that the complainant had done additions and alterations in the body of the vehicle for which fitness certificate was required but no fitness certificate was produced by the complainant and thirdly that it was being plied without a valid registration number.