AJIT SINGH AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE SH. HOSHIAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KUNGAR BHIANI,TEHSIL BHAWANI KHERA, DISTRICT, BHIWANI HARYANA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE II, SCO 337

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated 22.05.2012, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1524 of 2005, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajit and Ors. , vide which, while accepting the said appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar on 05.07.2005 in Consumer Complaint No. 53 of 2003, allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant Hoshiar Singh, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, Ajit Singh, Rajinder Singh and Rohtas Singh was the owner of a Tata Sumo vehicle, having registration no. HR 20D/8022, which was insured for the period, 24.11.2000 to 23.11.2001. The said vehicle was heavily damaged in an accident on 30.12.2000 on Delhi-Hisar Road. Two of the persons travelling in the said vehicle died as a result of injuries, inflicted during the accident. A criminal case, vide FIR No. 410 dated 30.01.2012, under Sec. 279/337/304A Penal Code was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle truck. On being informed, the opposite party, Insurance Company deputed a surveyor to assess the loss, who made its report on 15.01.2001. Thereafter, another surveyor Gurdeep Singh was appointed, who stated the loss to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1 lakh. As per the documents furnished by the complainant, a licence number D12932 of Ranbir Singh, driver was also given. The opposite party, Insurance Company asked the complainant to furnish the name of the licensing authority, who had originally issued the said driving licence of Ranbir Singh. However, for the failure of the complainant to furnish the information, the Insurance Company declared the claim as 'No Claim'. The complainant provided another driving licence issued by the licensing authority, Loharu in the name of Ranbir Singh, but the said licence was also not produced before the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the Insurance Company to pay a claim of Rs. 2.30 lakhs along with interest @ 18% and seeking compensation of Rs. 20,000.00 for mental harassment etc.

(3.) The said complaint was contested by the Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that they had sent various letters/reminders to the complainant for furnishing the particulars of the licence, but the same was not done. The claim had, therefore, been rightly repudiated by the Insurance Company. The second driving licence dated 19.06.1995 issued by the licensing authority, Loharu had also not been produced before the surveyor. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on behalf of the Insurance Company and hence, the complaint should be dismissed. The District Forum, vide their order dated 05.07.2005, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party, Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 12% from 30.01.2001 till payment. Being aggrieved against the said order, the Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal was accepted by the State Commission and the order of the District Forum was set aside. Being aggrieved against the impugned order, the successors-in-interest of the complainant Hoshiar Singh are before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.