State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Generla Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ashraf on 31 July, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 287 / 2014
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
Corporate Office: E-8 EPIP, RIICO Industrial area, Sitapura, Jaipur
Branch Office: 25-36, Block F, IInd Floor, Meedo Plaza
26/26A Rajpur Road, Dehradun
Through its Branch Manager Sh. Deepak Yadav
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Ashraf S/o Sh. Shareef
R/o 307 Sultanpur, Adampur
Tehsil - Laksar, District Haridwar
.......Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Nafees Ahmad, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 31/07/2018
ORDER
Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member:
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 57 of 2014. By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant-opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-as compensation, to the complainant, within one month from the date of order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant-Mohd. Ashraf S/o Sh. Sharif Ahmad is the registered owner of the vehicle No. UK08-CA-1771, which was insured by the opposite party No. 1-Shriram General 2 Insurance Co. Ltd. vide policy No. 107013/31/11/006637 for a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/-. The policy was valid from 18.03.2012 to 17.03.2013. The subject vehicle was being driven by the driver Mohd. Ashraf, met with an accident, consequently, the vehicle suffered damages. The complainant filed a claim against the damaged caused to the subject vehicle. The claim was repudiated by the opposite party No. 1- insurance company on 05.11.2012 stated that the vehicle was driven by the helper Sh. Jai Prakash at the time of accident. The complainant, therefore, filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The consumer complaint was contested by the opposite party No. 1-Insurance Company before the District Forum, Haridwar. The answering opposite party has filed written statement before the District Forum and has stated therein that the complainant furnished driving license of Mohd. Ashraf, though in its claim intimation slip, he mentioned name of Jai Prakash S/o Sh. Hardev to be the driver at relevant time on the steering wheel of the vehicle and in the column of insured's name has given Mohd. Ashraf, therefore, on the first intimation given by complainant answering opposite party set forth in processing the claim by way of demanding driving license of driver Jai Prakash S/o Hardev. It is established that Jai Prakash was driving vehicle No. UK08-CA-1771 as driver, therefore, claim could not be processed for lack of driving license of Jai Prakash, who was on the steering wheel at relevant time. Resulting in treating the claim as "No Claim". The complainant has concealed material document of driving license of Jai Prakash and furnished driving license of Mohd. Ashraf to manipulate things in its favour.
4. The opposite party No. 2 was not present before the District Forum despite of notice sent to him. An ex-parte order dated 21.04.2014 was passed against the opposite party No. 2.
35. The District Forum after an appreciation of the material placed on record, has allowed the consumer complaint with a direction to the opposite party No. 1-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to the complainant, within a month from the date of order. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 2-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
6. In the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the District Forum, while passing the judgment, has failed to consider that it was complainant-respondent who has given intimation about the accident on 27.06.2012 mentioning name of driver Jai Prakash S/o Hardev and later on in claim form, complainant has mentioned name of Mohd Ashraf S/o Sharif Ahmad, owner of the vehicle, as driver of the vehicle at the time of accident due to ulterior motives. The District Forum has failed to consider that the appellant has never demanded license of helper, but has demanded driving license of Jai Prakash, who was the driving the vehicle.
7. The main objection of the insurance company-appellant and the ground of repudiation, which should be discussed in the judgment of District Forum, was not decided. According to the appellant, at the time of accident, the accidented vehicle was plying by Sh. Jai Prakash not by Mohd. Ashraf. This statement was in the complainant's information slip and this was the ground of repudiation. But at the time of filing the consumer complaint, the complainant-respondent stated that the subject vehicle was driven by the driver Mohd. Ashraf. By perusal of the judgment of District Forum, this important fact was missed - that repudiation on the ground of valid driving license was genuine or not?
8. After going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum, it is observed that the consumer complaint was allowed with compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. But we found no discussion as the claim was repudiated by the insurance company-appellant on 4 account of not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the insurance company-appellant has intimated the complainant-respondent several times to provide the driving license of Jai Prakash, as per claim intimation. But the complainant-respondent has failed to furnish the driving license to the insurance company- appellant.
9. So, in our view the District Forum has committed error by not giving a finding on the issue which driver was driving the vehicle in question and was having a valid driving license. The case is remanded back to the District Forum to decide this question whether at the time of accident the driver, Jai Prakash or Mohd. Ashraf was plying the vehicle in question and was having valid driving license or not?
10. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 57 of 2014. The District Forum is directed to decide the consumer complaint on its own merit by giving the opportunity to led evidence and hearing to the parties as directed above.
11. Appeal is allowed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be released in appellant's favour. Record of the District Forum be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar immediately. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)