Case nº Revision Petition No. 4435 Of 2012, (Against the Order dated 06/07/2012 in Appeal No. 14/2011 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh) of NCDRC Cases, October 09, 2014 (case 1. Amrita Devi and Ors. 2. Shivam 3. Akshaya Kumar Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance)
| Judge | For Appellant: Shri Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri Rahul Vardhan, Advocate |
| President | Mr. K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member |
| Resolution Date | October 09, 2014 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 6.7.2012 passed by Learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 14/2011- Amrita Devi & Ors. VS. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance; by which while dismissing appeal, order of the District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant-Petitioner''s husband- Santosh Kumar was owner of tempo trax jeep No. HP-01M-0396 which was insured with Opposite Party-Respondent. Jeep had capacity to carry 9 passengers and a driver. On 15.10.2008, jeep met with an accident and driver of the vehicle and 9 other persons in the vehicle died. Complainant submitted claim to Opposite Party which was repudiated by Opposite Party on the ground that at the time of accident, 27 persons were sitting in the vehicle. Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, Complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that there was breach of terms of Policy as 27 persons were sitting in the vehicle against capacity of 9 persons and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by Complainant was dismissed by Learned State Commission by impugned order against which this Revision Petition has been filed.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Learned District Forum dismissed complaint erroneously presuming that 27 persons were travelling in the vehicle and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal on this ground. It was, further, submitted that atleast compensation should have been awarded on non-standard basis, hence, Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and compensation may be awarded. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with Law, hence, Revision Petition be dismissed.
Perusal of record clearly reveals that in FIR lodged by Revti Devi, one of the passengers in the vehicle, has clearly mentioned in FIR that 25-30 persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident. Not only this, Complainant herself submitted claim form in which she admitted that 27 persons were in the vehicle at the time of accident. Learned District Forum and Learned State Commission has...
To continue reading
Request your trial