KAILASH CHANDRA KALKHUNDIA S/O JIA DUTT KALKHINDIA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD; MEGA MOTORS, C V D HALDWANI; ORIENTAL INSURANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 03.01.2008 of the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 53 of 2007.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner purchased a Mini truck Tata 1109 in the year 2002 bearing registration no.UA03/ 0921. The said vehicle was insured with respondent no. 1 vide policy cover note no. 31/ 2003/ 448 and was effective from 08.05.2002 to 07.05.2003. The said vehicle met with an accident on 03.11.2002 between Bagarihat and Khulbiyari near Joljibi, Thana Askot, District Pitthoragarh and the vehicle got badly damaged. The cause of the accident as stated by the petitioner was failure of the vehicle's brakes. The petitioner informed the insurer immediately and lodged a claim for the loss. A spot survey was conducted by the surveyor on 06.11.2002 and the photographs of the accidented vehicle were also taken on 22.11.2002. As stated by the petitioner, on the basis of the surveyor's report the insurer had offered the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- against the claim which the petitioner refused to accept because the authorized service centre had estimated the cost of repairs at Rs.3,97,000/-. The petitioner sent letters to the insurer on 26.03.2003, 19.04.2003, 23.05.2003 and 26.08.2003 for settling his claim, but the insurer did not take any action. The petitioner also sent a letter dated 19.04.2003 to the customer service centre. Ultimately, on 03.02.2004, the insurer/ respondent no. 1 repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and thus, the insured petitioner had violated the terms of the policy. Hence, the petitioner filed the aforesaid consumer complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:

(3.) Respondent no. 1 in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udham Singh Nagar ('the District Forum') had opposed the complaint on the ground that the driver Basant Vallabh Patni who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident had a driving licence which was valid only for light motor vehicle (transport). According to the registration certificate the gross weight of the vehicle in question was 10,500 kilograms and hence the vehicle came in the category of heavy vehicle. The claim of the petitioner was repudiated for violation of the terms of insurance contract by the petitioner and the petitioner was not entitled to any kind of compensation.