State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Rukmini Sundara Rajan vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 28 March, 2006
A. Filed on 26.08.04 Disposed on 28.03.06 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED: 28/ 03/ 2006 PRESENT THE HON'BLE M.R.JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH : PRESIDENT SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No. 1359/2004 1. Smt. Rukmini Sundara Rajan No.16, 18¢ Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore - 55. A .....Appe11ant/ s (By Shri/ Smt Vishwanath Sabarad ) --Versus- 1. New India Assurance Co. Ltd by the Divisional Manager, DO~XL, Tower Block, Unity Building, J C Road, Bangalore ---- O2. ... ..Respondent/ s (By Shri/ Smt R. Jaiprakash ) ORDER
JUSTICE CI-IANDRASHEKARAIAH, PRESIDENT This appeal is by the complainant challenging the order of the DF dismissing her complaint.
The complainant is the owner of Mtaruthi car. The said vehicle was insured with the OP. When the policy was in force the vehicle met with an accident on 11.1.1998. In the said accident the vehicle Sufi:-edwvcetriain damage and one person died on the spot. After the death/the complainant made a claim for compensation before the insurance company. The insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor has assessed the total loss. Thereafter the insurance company having come to know that one Chandrakumar was driving the vehicle who had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle repudiated the claim. This has made the complainant to file the complaint before the DF.
Before the DF the case of the complainant is that the vehicle was being driven by one Rahul who is the son of the complainant at the time of the accident. In the FIR filed before the criminal court it is stated that one Praveen was driving the vehicle. But the said Praveen died in the said accident.
5*" tamed»-L~'o- V' Now the only question that arose is Whether the vehicle was driven by Chandrakanth, Praveen or bny Rahul at the time of the accident?
Rahul being the son of the complainant, the complainant should have filed the affidavit of Rahul so as to show that he was driving the vehicle. In the instant case no such affidavit has been filed by the complainant.
The insurance company, it appears has taken summons to two eye Witnesses. But it appears they did not come before the DF to give evidence. Then the complainant made an application for warrant. It appears the same was rejected by the DF.
At the time of the arguments the appellant has produced the FIR. From this it is seen one Mr. Praveen Was driving the vehicle who said to have been died in the accident. It is also not known What happened to the criminal case.
After going through the order of the DF, We are of the view, in the interest of justice that an opportunity should be given to both the parties to establish their case. In the result, we pass the following:
0 R D E R i Appeal is allowed. impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the DF to dispose of the matter 1% afresh after due not ice to the parties to adduce their evidence in respect of their case. MEMBE s PRESIDENT 11.111'