National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs M/S. Dharam Singh Mohar Singh on 31 May, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3262 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 27/08/2015 in Appeal No. 78/2015 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS DELHI REGIONAL OFFICE AT NATIONAL LEGAL VERTICAL, 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI-110055 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. DHARAM SINGH MOHAR SINGH R/O VILLAGE PAMTA, POST OFFICE SHAWGA TEHSIL KAMRAOO,DISTRICT SIRMOUR H.P. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Raj Negi, Advocate Dated : 31 May 2017 ORDER
1. Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 27.08.2015, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 78 of 2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 17.03.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 45 of 2010. By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint, filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating his claim for indemnification of the loss, suffered by him on account of damage to the JCB Machine (Excavator), due to its overturning, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹8,50,000/- as total loss of the vehicle less salvage value, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 09.06.2010, till realization. The District Forum had also awarded in favour of the Complainant a compensation of ₹25,000/- for the mental harassment suffered and the litigation expenses incurred by him.
2. Since the factum of the overturning of the Excavator in question and the damage caused to it, as also the fact that it was insured with the Insurance Company at the time of accident, is not in dispute, we deem it unnecessary to burden this order by narrating the facts, giving rise to the filing of the Complaint, in extenso. It would suffice to note that the afore-noted claim, preferred by the Complainant with the Insurance Company, was repudiated on two grounds, viz. (i) extra premium to cover the damage on account of its overturning had not been paid; and (ii) the driver did not possess a valid licence at the time of accident.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, including a copy of the licence, which has been shown to us during the course of hearing, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit.
4. Insofar as the question of non-payment of extra premium to cover the damage on account of overturning is concerned, both the Fora below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that it was factually incorrect, so much so that there was an endorsement to that effect on the cover note itself. As regards the question of validity of the driving licence, the finding by both the Fora below to the effect that since the Excavator fell in the category of light motor vehicle, as defined in Section 2(21) of the said Act, and is also a non-transport vehicle, as per the Notification dated 05.11.2004, is based on correct analysis of Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which details the types of licences issued, and Rule 2(c)(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, defining construction equipment vehicle, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting interference in exercise of our limited Revisional Jurisdiction.
5. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER