UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RIYAJUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual matrix of this case, briefly stated, are that the respondent/complainant being the owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. KA 25/8428, insured his vehicle with the petitioner insurance company for the declared market value of Rs.3,55,000/-.Accepting the said value of the vehicle, the petitioner insurance company collected the premium on this value from the respondent.When the policy was in force, the said vehicle was stolen.Thereafter, the complainant/respondent made a claim for compensation before the petitioner/insurance company.His claim was however repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license to drive the vehicle.The complainant/ respondent, therefore, filed a consumer complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (in short "District Forum") alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner/insurance company in repudiating the claim of the respondent.On notice, the OP/petitioner filed its reply and contested the complaint and the claim of the respondent.Both the parties led the evidence, in support of their contentions and the District Forum relying upon the evidence vide its order dated 27.09.2006, held that since the vehicle in question was stolen when it was parked at the tempo stand, there is no need to consider the plea of the OP/insurance company regarding the non-holding of a valid driving license by the driver to drive the vehicle.The District Forum, thus, allowed the complaint by directing the OP/insurance company to pay the policy amount of Rs.3,55,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization along with Rs.100/- as cost of litigation.

(2.) Aggrieved of this order of the District Forum, the OP/insurance company challenged the same before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short "State Commission) by filing an appeal bearing no. 2453/2006.On consideration of the grounds of appeal, the State Commission vide its order dated 21.11.2006, upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the OP/insurance company.In these circumstances, the petitioner insurance company has filed the present revision petition challenging the order of the State Commission.

(3.) Xxx XXX XXX