National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Delhi Dhulia Road Carriers vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & ... on 3 July, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2652 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 20.05.2011 in First Appeal No.2010/65 of the State Commission, Delhi) M/s Delhi Dhulia Road Carriers AW-117, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Delhi-110 042 Through its Proprietor Shri Rajvinder Singh .Petitioner Versus 1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office No. 27 A-2/3, Nani Wala Bagh, Lusa Tower Azadpur, Ringh Road, Delhi- 110 033 2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Delhi Regional Office No.11 Scope Tower, Laxmi Nagar District Centre Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092 .........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Ray, Advocate and Mr. Amitava Poddar, Advocate with Ms. Reshma Gehlod, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 03.07.2012 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER The revision petitioner, M/s Delhi Dhulia Road Carriers has challenged the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 2010/65, in the present proceedings. As the Complainant, the case of the petitioner before the District Forum was that his truck was insured with the Opposite Party, United India Insurance Co. Ltd (respondents in this revision petition). In the night of 14/15.3.2006 this truck was stolen. A complaint was lodged with the Police. The driver was found the next morning in an inebriated condition and was got examined by the Police in a local hospital on 15.3.2006. The examination confirmed smell of alcohol and absence of any fresh bodily injury. The Police eventually could not trace the truck. Nevertheless, the insurance Co. repudiated the claim on 9.1.2008.
2. The District Forum noted that the surveyor appointed by the respondent/OP had recorded a statement of the driver, according to which, the driver had executed an agreement with the owner/insured accepting total responsibility for the vehicle. It held that detailed evidence would need to be recorded to rebut this finding of the surveyor, which cannot be done in summary proceedings before it. Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. The State Commission disagreed with this view of the District Forum, holding that there was no need to record oral evidence. The question whether there was any negligence or lack of reasonable care on the part of the driver in protecting the vehicle, could be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The State Commission held that it was evident from report of the medical examination that the driver was drunk and was found in an inebriated state. It was also clear that the driver had not removed the key of the vehicle from its ignition socket. The Commission therefore came to the conclusion that the driver had failed to take reasonable care of the vehicle, which was a violation of the insurance agreement. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.
4. We have examined the records and heard Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate for the revision petitioner.
5. Learned counsel relied on the statement of the driver recorded before the Police on 7.6.2006. As per this, the driver was given some ladoo as prasad by another driver. He lost consciousness immediately after consuming it. When he revived, he found himself in Police station and the Hospital. He then came to learn that the truck had been stolen. The counsel argued that it was not a case of consumption of alcohol but of an innocent driver having been tricked into the situation. The counsel also argued that if there were any lack of bonafides or lack of reasonable care in protecting the vehicle, the insured himself would not have taken the driver to the Police. We are unable to accept this argument, in the face of incontrovertible evidence coming from the report of the medical examination.
6. In our view, the decision of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of the evidence before it. We find no merit in this revision petition. The same is therefore, dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
.Sd/-
(V.B.GUPTA,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-.
(VINAY KUMAR) S./-
MEMBER