State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Company Limited ... vs Nirmla Goswami W/O N Arayan Goswami on 26 May, 2016
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 987 /2015 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager ,Office- I, F&B above ICICI Bank,Near Galaxy cnema,RIICO Industrial area, Mansarovar, Jaipur. Vs. Nirmala Goswami w/o Narayan Goswami r/o 466,, Nemi Sagar colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Date of Order 26.5.2016 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member
Mr. Gaurav Jain counsel for the appellants None present on behalf of respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the 2 learned DCF, Jaipur 2nd dated 24.6.2015 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant.
The contention of the appellant is that at the time of accident Rajesh Kumar Goswami was the driver not having a valid driving license . It was the breach of policy condition and the claim should have been dismissed.
Heard the counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. Original record of the case has also been looked into.
The contention of the appellant is that at the time of accident Rajesh Kumar Goswami was the driver but no such specific contention has been raised by the company in its written reply and further more the claim has not been repudiated on this ground. Admittedly accident has taken place on 13.5.2007 and on the same night i.e.on 14.5.2007 at 2.15 p.m. report has been lodged in rojnamcha in which it has been stated that Pradeep Kumar was the driver and report has also been lodged by Pradeep Kumar himself. The driving license of Pradeep Kumar has also been placed on record which has been effective till the date of accident. The insurance company has 3 asked for the driving license of Narayan Goswami who was not the driver of the vehicle and died in the accident. Hence, the contention of the insurance company is not well founded.
It has been stated that Rajesh Kumar was the driver and he has stated so before Dangiawas police station, District Jodhpur on 21.5.2007 but in rojnamcha there is no narration of the fact that Rajesh Kumar was driving the vehicle. Rajesh Kumar has informed only about the accident and he lodged the First Information Report for insurance claim only. Hence, there is no evidence to support that Rajesh Kumar was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The rojnamcha report of 14.5.2007 is the immediate version after the accident where it has been stated that Pradeep Kumar is the driver.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal. It is not worth admission and liable to be rejected.
(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta ) Member President nm