PARASNATH JHA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant / petitioner owned a vehicle bearing registration No CG-04-DL-2480 which he had got insured with the respondent for the period from 26.09.2012 to 25.09.2013. The aforesaid vehicle having met with an accident on 05.3.2013, a claim under the aforesaid policy was lodged by the petitioner / complainant. A surveyor was appointed to assess the loss but the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 23.01.2014, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle namely Mr. Saroj Rai did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time the vehicle met with an accident. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat at Jagdalpur, which declared him eligible for payment of Rs.5,19,769/- from the respondent, along with interest etc. A Writ Petition was filed by the respondent in the concerned High Court, challenging the adjudication by the Lok Adalat. The High Court vide its order dated 09.12.2015, set aside the said adjudication, while permitting the complainant to approach a competent Court / Forum. The complainant thereupon approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking payment of the claim lodged by him.

(2.) It was submitted before the District Forum that the driving licence, on the basis of which a renewed driving licence was obtained by the driver was a fake licence and therefore, the renewed driving licence obtained by him cannot be said to be a legal and valid driving licence.

(3.) The District Forum partly allowed the complaint by directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,04,769/- to the complainant along with interest, compensation quantified at Rs.5,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the quantum of the compensation awarded to him, he also filed a separate appeal, seeking enhancement of the amount directed to be paid to him. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 15.02.2017 allowed the appeal filed by the insurer while dismissing the appeal filed by the complainant and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his appeal and allowing of the appeal filed by the insurer, the complainant is before this Commission.