NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN hearing in this case commenced, facts are by and large admitted, to which brief reference will be made hereinafter.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tajta submitted while impugning the order of the District Forum Mandi, in complaint No. 353/2004, that the driving licence of the driver was fake and the respondent had played fraud by misrepresenting and concealing material facts, as such the contract of Insurance became void. It was also urged, that two complaints, one being complaint No.353/2004(out of which present appeal No. 299/2005 has arisen), and other being complaint No. 354/2004, were filed. From the impugned order it is evident that his complaint was withdrawn unconditionally on 16.8.2005 when complaint No. 353/2004 was decided. Mr. Tajta further pointed out that, in complaint No. 353/2004 stand of the respondent was that one Mr. Ved Parkash was the driver at the time of accident, whereas, in complaint No. 354/2004, her stand was that Hari Singh who was her husband, was the driver. Reference in this behalf was made by Mr. Tajta to paragraph 9 of the impugned order and he severely criticized the entire impugned order in general and its paragraph 13 in particular. Thus on these grounds appeal deserved to be allowed and consequently after setting aside the impugned order, complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent. He submitted that so far complaint No.4/2004 was concerned, it was claiming damages on account of death of Hari Singh who had died while removing the stone put behind the rear wheel of the truck, whereas, complaint No. 353/2004 was filed claiming damage to the vehicle in question. He even went to the extent of submitting that even if it be assumed that the driving licence of Sh. Ved Parkash was fake as alleged by the appellant, in the circumstances of this case particularly when accident took place, it makes no difference. In addition to this he submitted that so far present case is concerned, there was no embargo in its being filed by his client as such submissions to the contrary on behalf of the appellant by its learned counsel are without merit. Regarding fraud Mr. Chandel clarified that there is no question of fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts etc., having been practiced by his client as alleged on behalf of the appellant, nor any facts have been pleaded, much less evidence to establish the same.

(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the manner in which accident had taken place, we are of the firm view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.