UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NIRMALA KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 2835/2015 has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the impugned order dated 18.9.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 824/2012, United India Insurance Company v. Smt. Nirmala Kothari, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 30.5.2012 , passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer in Consumer Complaint No. 262/2011, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Revision Petition No. 3053/2016 has been filed, challenging the impugned order dated 1.8.2016 in First Appeal No. 3666/2013, United India Insurance Company v. Smt. Nirmala Kothari , vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 28.2.2013, passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in consumer complaint No. 227/ 2012, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Nirmala Kothari stated in her consumer complaint No. 262/2011 that her husband, Vinod Ray Kothari was the owner of a Hyundai Elantra vehicle, registration No. RJ36CA111, which was insured with the opposite party (OP), Insurance Company for the period 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010 for a sum assured of Rs. 5 lakh. On 6.6.2010, her husband was coming from Pali to Beawar, when he met with an accident with a tractor, bearing No. HR 38 K 3216, as a result of which, he and his daughter died and the vehicle was totally damaged. The driver of the vehicle Dharmendra Singh Chauhan got an FIR No. 49/2010 dated 6.6.2010 registered with the police under Section 279, 337, 304A, IPC, etc. The Insurance Company/ on intimation having been given to them, appointed a spot surveyor, and also a regular surveyor to carry out-survey in the matter, but the claim was rejected by them vide their letter dated 28.3.2011. The OP Insurance Company stated in the repudiation letter that the driver Dharmendra Singh Chauhan did not have a proper driving licence at the time of the accident. The licence produced by him, alleged to have been procured from the office of the licencing authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi could not be verified, as the concerned officer of the transport department returned their letter with the endorsement that the record pertaining to the said licence was not available. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OP Insurance Company, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to pay the Insured declared value (IDV) i.e. a sum of Rs. 5 lakh along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 11,000 as litigation cost. The District Forum vide their order dated 30.5.2012, allowed the said consumer complaint and directed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,57,500 to the complainant, as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 9% p.a. and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,500. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company challenged the same by way or appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.9.2015, the OP Insurance Company is before this Commission by way of the Revision Petition No. 2835/2015.