NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1554/2010

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALKAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. K.L. NANDWANI

07 May 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 27 Apr 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/1554/2010
(Against the Order dated 21/12/2009 in Appeal No. 25/2009 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.Delhi Regional Office No. 1, Kanchanjunga Building, 8th Floor, Barakhamba RoadNew Delhi - 110001Delhi ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. BALKAR SINGHR/o. V.&.P.O. Chowria, Teh. BharriyatChambaHimachal Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. K.L. NANDWANI
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 07 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Delay of 19 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Respondent/complainant got his vehicle insured with the petitioner for the period from 19.5.2003 to 18.5.2004.  The vehicle met with an accident on 31.12.2003.  After completing all the formalities, respondent filed a claim with the petitioner which was repudiated on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid driving license on the date of accident.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.

 

-2-

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed.  Order of the District Forum has been set aside and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,61,071/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.1.2006 till the date of payment.  Rs.10,000/- were awarded as costs.

          The petitioner had appointed one Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate to investigate regarding the genuineness of the driving license.  The State Commission in its order has recorded that the report submitted by Mr.Amit Jain was not put on record.  No report from the office of RTO was obtained regarding validity of the driving license or otherwise.  The only evidence produced by the petitioner was the affidavit of Mr. P.S. Kalair, Division Manager of the petitioner to the effect that as per the report of Mr. Amit Jain, the driving license was fake.  The State Commission has not accepted the affidavit of Mr. P. S. Kalair as the same was based on the report of Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate which had not been produced.  Affidavit of Mr. Amit Jain

-3-

was also not filed. 

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The affidavit filed by Mr. P. S. Kalair in the absence of report of Mr. Amit Jain or the affidavit of Mr. Amit Jain could not be accepted.  No documentary evidence was produced on record from the office of RTO showing that the driving license issued to Balkar Singh, driver was fake.  No merits.  dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER