State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Ramesh Chand Yadav S/O Phool Chan D Yadav on 23 March, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 717/2016 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 20 Mohan House, Transport Nagar, Jaipur & ors. Vs. Ramesh Chand Yadav r/o Village Mehta Ki Jodhpura, Tehsil Thanagaji, Alwar. Date of Order 23.3.2017 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member
Mr. Sanjeev Arora counsel for the appellant Mr. Vinod Sharma counsel for the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
2This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 1st dated 17.5.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.
The contention of the appellant is that at the time of accident Sunil Yadav was driving the vehicle and he was not having the effective driving license. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed and further more the vehicle was over loaded.
Per contra the contention of the respondent is that at the time of accident Budharam was driving the vehicle and he was having the effective driving license.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
The contention of the complainant respondent is that Budharam was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and having effective driving license. After investigation charge sheet has also been filed against Budharam u/s 279 & 337 IPC . Hence, claim has rightly been allowed.3
The complainant Ramesh Chand Yadav has lodged the First Information Report Ex. 4 which clearly contains that driver was Sunil Yadav. The report was lodged on 2.9.2012 just after the accident. Thereafter on 5.9.2012 stand has been changed and owner of the vehicle has stated that Budharam was the driver at the time of accident and Budharam has also stated so under notice given to him but as Ramesh Chand is the ultimate beneficiary and interested person in getting the claim it is not safe to rely on his contention and first contention which has been brought on record after the accident is Ex. 4 and the fact could also be noted that in accident Sunil and Pramod has suffered grievous injuries and they were referred to hospital at Beawar. Hence, it can clearly be concluded that to get the claim name of Budharam has been inserted as driver which cannot be accepted and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that driver of the vehicle was not having effective driving license.
Reliance has rightly been placed by the appellant on IV (2010) CPJ 244 (NC) M.M.Jaffar & Co. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. where also FIR does not mention name of the driver. Further reliance has been placed on III (2014) CPJ 162 (NC) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Vs. Pawan Kumar 4 where claim has been repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident which is the similar case here.
Further the respondent himself has accepted the fact that vehicle was over loaded at the time of accident and reliance has been placed on I (2015) CPJ 332 (NC) Bherajram Vs. United India Insurance Co. In view of the fact that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid effective driving license at the time of accident, it was fundamental breach of condition and claim should have been dismissed. Hence, the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside.
In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 17.5.2016 is set aside.
(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta) Member President nm