M/S. ROYAL GOODS TRANSPORT CO. G.T. ROAD PANIPAT HARYANA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, G.T. ROAD PANIPAT HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 10.11.2010, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) in First Appeal No. 1358/2007, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Royal Goods Transport Company , vide which, while accepting the said appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat, dated 25.04.2007, in Consumer Complaint No. 210/2006, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Transport Company is the owner of a vehicle bearing no. HR 67A 0792, which was insured with the respondent/OP National Insurance Co. Ltd. vide cover note no. 156324, book no. 42/02/03/6253 effective from 30.06.2004 at 9.30am to 29.06.2005 upto midnight. The said vehicle was damaged in an accident in the night of 23/24.12.2004 near Beas Bridge in the area of police station Beas (Punjab). At that time, the vehicle was being driven by Ashok Kumar, driver. It is stated that Chaman Lal, cleaner sustained injuries in the said accident. An intimation about the accident and damage to the vehicle was given to the Insurance Company and the same was got repaired at a cost of Rs. 1,75,527.30.00 from Metro Motors Ambala and the bill was submitted to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company denied the claim vide letter dated 09.12.2005, saying that the driver Ashok Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The consumer complaint in question was filed on 26.04.2006, seeking directions to the respondent Company to pay the cost of repairs as Rs. 1,75,527.30.00 along with Rs. 50,000.00 as compensation and Rs. 5,500.00 as litigation expenses.

(3.) In their reply filed before the District Forum, the OP Insurance Company stated that there had been violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy in question, because the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle was found to be fake/invalid.