State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Daulat Singh vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 3 January, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 211 / 2010
Sh. Daulat Singh S/o Sh. Hayat Singh
R/o Village and Post Simkhola
Tehsil Dharchula, District Pithoragarh
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited
through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office
Nainital Road, Haldwani
District Nainital
......Respondent / Opposite Party
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Ashok Aggarwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 03/01/2012
ORDER
Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral):
This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 03.06.2010 passed by the District Forum, Pithoragarh, dismissing consumer complaint No. 08 of 2006.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant has got his vehicle (maxi cab) insured with the opposite party - The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 11.02.2005 to 10.02.2006. He was issued permit in respect of a contract carriage valid for the period from 15.07.2005 to 14.07.2010. On 08.08.2005, the insured vehicle met with an accident. The claim lodged by the 2 complainant for indemnification of the loss was repudiated by the insurance company on 06.12.2005 and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Pithoragarh.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that in the permit issued to the complainant by the State Transport Authority, Dehradun, a specific condition was imposed on the permit holder, i.e., the insured that he shall employ such a driver, who was having atleast five years experience in driving the vehicle. The driving licence of the driver Sh. Devendra Singh was issued on 30.05.2003 and the same was endorsed for hill routes on 06.11.2004 and the accident took place on 08.08.2005 and, as such, the driver was not having an experience of five years of driving such type of vehicle on the date of the accident and, as such, the claim was rightly repudiated.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 03.06.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. It is not in dispute that in the permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Dehradun, it was specifically mentioned that the permit holder shall employ a driver having atleast five years experience in driving the vehicle. It is also not disputed that the driving licence of the driver was issued on 30.05.2003 and the same was endorsed for hill routes on 06.11.2004 and the accident took place 3 on 08.08.2005. Thus, on the date of the accident, the driver was not having an experience of even a year. The District Forum has relied upon the decision of this Commission given in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pradeep Singh Bisht; I (2009) CPJ 364, wherein it has been held that the complainant has not used his vehicle in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted by the appropriate transport authority and has thereby made violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and the claim was rightly repudiated. In the said case also, a specific condition was imposed on the permit holder, i.e., the insured that he shall employ such a driver, who was having atleast five years experience in driving the vehicle and the driver did not meet the required specific condition.
7. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not require any interference. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of above, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K