National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kuldeep Singh D. Rana vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 11 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3425 OF 2011 Alongwith (I. A. No. 2 of 2011) (for Condonation of Delay) (From the order dated 21.4.2011 in Appeal No.458/08/2011 of the State Commission, Gujarat) Kuldeep Singh D. Rana Residing at : A-364, Ghanshyamnagar, Near Noblenagar, Kotarpur, Ahmedabad Petitioner Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. D.O. B-2, Neptune House -2, Above Vijay bank, Mithakhali Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009. ...Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Niraj Jha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. R. B. Shami, Advocate Pronounced on: 11th February, 2013 ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER In this revision there is challenge to order dated 21.4.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad, Gujarat (for short, State Commission). Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed in which no period of delay has been mentioned. However, as per office note, there is a delay of 14 days. For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 14 days is condoned.
2. Case of petitioner/complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (for short, District Forum) was that he purchased Qualis Car (Taxi) for which he obtained an insurance policy from the respondent/opposite party valid from 18.10.2006 till 17.10.2007. On 30.10.2006, above car was going from Jaipur to Ahmebad with passengers in the morning hours. Due to sudden burst of front tyre, the vehicle became unbalanced and it climbed on divider of the road. The driver of the vehicle turned on the parking light and went to nearby hotel for making a telephone call.
Meanwhile, another Alto Maruti Car No.HR26Z 2071 came in full speed being driven by its driver negligently and dashed against the car of the petitioner, causing substantial damage to its vehicle. FIR was lodged with Police Station, Vijaynagar of Ajmer Distt. Petitioner informed the respondent about the said accident and lodged a claim of Rs.1,89,571/- but the same was rejected by the respondent, vide its letter dated 23.3.2007 stating that driver of the petitioner namely, Jagdish K. Agrawal was not holding the cab driver badge at the time of accident. Due to deficiency in service, petitioner filed complaint before the District Forum.
3. Respondent in its written statement took the plea that since vehicle was being used for commercial purposes as such consumer complaint is not maintainable. However, factum of accident has not been disputed. It is also admitted that as per Surveyors report, a sum of Rs.87,568/- is payable. Since, there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy as driver of the petitioner was not holding a valid driving license, the respondent is not liable to pay for the damage caused to the vehicle.
4. District Forum, vide order dated 3.10.2007, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.86,388/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 30.6.2007 till the date of payment. A sum of Rs.1,250/- was also awarded towards the cost.
5. Petitioner did not challenge the order of the District Forum. On the other hand, respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the State Commission, vide its impugned order.
6. Hence, this revision.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that driver of the petitioner was having a valid driving license and copy of which has been placed on record. Moreover, Surveyor has also approved the claim, as such State Commission has wrongly dismissed the complaint.
9. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that as driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid commercial driving license, there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the State Commission. In support, learned counsel for respondent relied upon following judgments ;
(i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, 1(2008) CPJ 1 (SC);
(ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Aggarwal, (IV) (2009) CPJ 25 (SC) and
(iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and others, 2006(ACJ),1336.
10. As per averments made in the complaint as a result of bursting of the tyre of the vehicle in question it was parked stationary and driver had turned on the parking light. Meanwhile, another vehicle dashed with the stationary vehicle of the petitioner. In this manner accident was occurred. These facts have not been disputed by the respondent in its written statement.
11. Since, vehicle in question was damaged at that time when it was in stationary condition, the question of having valid driving license by the driver of vehicle of the petitioner is not all material in this case. Even otherwise, petitioner has placed on record copy of the driving license of the driver who was driving the vehicle and the same is a valid driving license. Moreover, surveyors report assessing a sum of Rs.87,568/- as damages for the vehicle in question has not been disputed by the respondent.
12. Various judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. State Commission, in its impugned order has not given any reason at all for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. In our view the decision of the District Forum is perfectly legal and justified. Under these circumstances, we are unable to sustain the impugned order. The same is accordingly set aside and complaint of the petitioner stands allowed. Present revision petition thus stands allowed.
14. No order as to cost.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ..J (K.S. CHAUDHARI) MEMBER SSB