BALWINDER KAUR Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/Complainant has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') against impugned order dated 31.1.2014 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short, 'State Commission') vide which appeal filed by Respondents/Opposite Parties against order dated 8.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (for short, 'District Forum') was allowed. Consequently, complaint filed by petitioner before the District Forum was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts are, that Petitioner filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against respondent on the grounds, that she is owner of HTV No.PB-11-AE-9602 which was insured with the respondents vide policy dated 08.12.2007. This vehicle met with an accident and was got repaired under supervision of respondents. Petitioner spent about Rs.2.00 lacs on its repair. Inspite of various request, ultimately vide their letter dated 01.07.2008, respondents repudiated the claim. Thereafter, complaint was filed.

(3.) In reply, respondents admitted that vehicle was insured with it. However, petitioner gave intimation on 27.03.2008, that is, after 5 days regarding the loss. Shri Rajeev Sharma, Surveyor was deputed who submitted his report dated 09.06.2008. In the claim form submitted by the petitioner, it was stated that vehicle was driven by Kulwant Singh at the time of accident. As per driving licence, driver was entitled to drive LMV and HMV only. The vehicle as per load challan, was transporting 20,000 liters ENA. However, driver was not competent to drive the vehicle loaded with hazardous goods which is violation of the terms and conditions. Therefore, claim was repudiated, vide letter dated 01.07.2008.