KAILASH CHANDRA KALKHUNDIA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 5. 2. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in Consumer Complaint No. 59 of 2004. Vide its majority decision, the District Forum has dismissed the complaint.

(2.) IN brief, the facts of the case leading to filing of the consumer complaint are that the appellant-complainant had purchased a mini truck-Tata 1109, in the year 2002 bearing the registration No. U. A. 03/0921. The vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 1-the insurer under the policy Cover Note No. 31/2003/448 and was effective for the period from 8. 5. 2002 to 7. 5. 2003. The vehicle met with an accident on 3. 11. 2002 between Bagarihat and Khulbiyari, near Joljibi, Thana Askot, District Pitthoragarh and got badly damaged. The cause of the accident, as stated by the complainant, was failure of the vehicle's brakes. Appellant informed the insurer immediately and lodged a claim for the loss. A spot survey was conducted by the Surveyor on 6. 11. 2002 and the photographs of the accidented vehicle were also taken on 22. 11. 2002. As stated by the appellant, on the basis of the Surveyor's report the insurer had offered the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,67,000 against the claim, which the appellant refused to accept because the authorised service centre had estimated the cost of repairs at Rs. 3,97,000. Appellant sent letters to the insurer on 26. 3. 2003, 19. 4. 2003, 23. 5. 2003 and 26. 8. 2003 for settling his claim, but the insurer did not take any action. Appellant also sent a letter dated 19. 4. 2003 to the customer service centre. Ultimately, on 3. 2. 2004, the insurer - respondent No. 1 repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, thus, the insured-appellant had violated the terms of the policy. Upon this, the appellant filed the aforesaid consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) WE have heard the Counsel for the appellant and the respondents and perused the material placed on record.