LAWS(NCD)-2015-4-198

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. TOOFANI HATI

Decided On April 20, 2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
Toofani Hati Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 923/2012 National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Toofani Hati by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent got his truck OR-06-F-7886 insured from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 19.4.2011 to 18.4.2012. On 28.10.2011, truck met with a accident and extensive damage was caused to the vehicle. OP was intimated and surveyor was appointed who surveyed vehicle in the garage. Complainant got it repaired and submitted bills of Rs.3,98,000/- to OP, but OP vide letter dated 7.5.2012 asked for copy of last permit of the vehicle to harass the respondent. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that surveyor assessed loss and obtained signatures of complainant on acceptance sheets which were not blank. It was further submitted that permit submitted by complainant was from 29.10.2011 to 28.10.2016, but vehicle met with an accident on 28.10.2011 and as per RTO information submitted by complainant, he was having temporary permit from 25.10.2011 to 31.10.2011 under Section 66 (3) (p) of the Motor Vehicle Act. It was further submitted that purpose of temporary permit was to shift empty vehicle for repair whereas at the time of accident vehicle was loaded with bricks which was violation of the terms of permit; so, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,79,863/- and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.