Case nº Revision Petition No. 2941 Of 2016, (Against the Order dated 12/07/2016 in Appeal No. 104/2013 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 01, 2016 (case Purushottam Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Nitin Singh, Advocate
PresidentMr. Ajit Bharihoke,Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Member
Resolution DateDecember 01, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


  1. This revision is directed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, "the State Commission) dated 12.7.2016 in first appeal No.104/2013. The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal preferred by the opposite party insurance company, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

  2. Undisputed facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant had purchased a comprehensive insurance policy related to car No.MP-20 CB-3973 from the opposite party. During the currency of the insurance policy the car met with an accident and suffered damages. The petitioner filed the insurance claim which was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the car at the relevant time was being driven by Raja Soni who was not having a valid driving license which amounted to violation of essential stipulation of the insurance contract. Case of the petitioner is that though Raja Soni was in the car at the time of accident but he was only a passenger and the car was being driven by the driver Parimal.

  3. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to Rs.2,53,605/- with 6.5% interest.

  4. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite party insurance company approached the State Commission, M.P. in appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

  5. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the State Commission has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner on the premise that Raja Soni at the time of accident was driving the subject car without a valid driving license in violation of terms of insurance policy. The basis of the said conclusion of the State Commission was that in the FIR lodged with the concerned police station it was mentioned that the car was being driven by Raja Soni.

  6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that conclusion of the State Commission is against the facts. The State Commission has failed to appreciate that the FIR was recorded by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT