Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26308 of 2013). Case: Narinder Singh Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 8463 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26308 of 2013) |
| Judges | M. Yusuf Eqbal and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ. |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 3, 39, 40, 43, 66, 192 |
| Judgement Date | September 04, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
M. Yusuf Eqbal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.4.2013 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, "National Commission") whereby Revision Petition No. 4951 of 2012 of the Appellant herein was dismissed upholding the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, "State Commission"), which had dismissed the complaint and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (in short, "District Forum") granting the claim on non-standard basis.
3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
4. The Petitioner-complainant had purchased a Mahindra Pick UP BS-II 4WD vehicle and got it insured for an amount of Rs. 4,30,037/- with Respondent No. 1-M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the period 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2006. The vehicle was temporarily registered for one month period, which expired on 11.1.2006. However, on 2.2.2006, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. The complainant lodged FIR and informed about it to the Respondent-Company, which appointed a surveyor and Assessed the loss at Rs. 2,60,845/- on repair basis. The insurance claim was, however, repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the person Rajeev Hetta, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and also the vehicle had not been registered after the expiry of the temporary registration. Consequently, the Appellant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum.
5. After hearing parties on either side and scanning the record of the case meticulously, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent-Company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of 75% of 4,30,037/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon with effect from the date of filing of the complaint. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, Respondent-Company as well as the Appellant-complainant approached State Commission by way of appeal. The State Commission by its common order disposed of both the appeals, allowing appeal of the Company and dismissing the complaint of the Complainant due to which the appeal preferred by the Appellant-complainant was dismissed as infructuous.
6. Aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission, the Appellant preferred revision petition before the National...
To continue reading
Request your trial