First Appeal No. 307 of 2013. Case: Sunil Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 307 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ram Lal Verma, Advocate and For Respondents: J.S. Bagga, Advocate, Virender Rathour, Advocate vice Rahul Mahajan, Advocate |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, President and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 14, 14(2), 15, 15(1) |
| Citation | 2014 (II) ShimLC 864 |
| Judgement Date | May 06, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, President
-
Appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August, 2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby appellant's complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the finding that the insured vehicle was a goods carriage, i.e. to say, a transport vehicle, while the person, who was driving the said vehicle, at the time of the accident, held a licence to drive a non-transport light motor vehicle. Admitted facts are that appellant owned a Mahindra Max Pickup vehicle, which was insured with respondent No. 1, for the period from 14.04.2008 to 13.042009. Vehicle met with an accident on 05.09.2008 and was damaged. Report was lodged with the Police. Intimation of the accident was given to respondent No. 1 also. A surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss at Rs. 3,08,532/-, but at the same time he reported that the loss being marginally less than 75% of the insured's declared value, which was Rs. 4,22,000/-, and there being likelihood of the loss assessed increasing by 10% on dismantling of the vehicle, it was in the interest of the insurer to get the wreck value of the vehicle ascertained and settle the claim on cash loss basis.
-
Respondent No. 1 repudiated the claim on the ground that the person, namely Sunil Dutt, who was driving the vehicle at the time, when accident took place, held a licence to drive a light motor vehicle and that the endorsement authorizing the holder of the licence to drive heavy goods vehicle, having expired on 16.08.2008, and the vehicle, in question, being a transport vehicle, the licence was not valid and effective. Appellant, therefore, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondent No. 1 to pay insurance money, damages and litigation expenses.
-
Respondent No. 1 contested the complaint and pleaded that the vehicle at the time of the accident was being driven by a person, not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Learned District Forum has accepted the respondent No. 1's plea and dismissed the complaint.
-
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record:
-
Admittedly, the vehicle was being driven by one Sunil Dutt, at the time when the accident took place. Said Sunil Dutt was issued a licence to drive a light motor vehicle on 31.10.2003, upto 11.06.2033. Copy of...
To continue reading
Request your trial