Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow

Appeal No. 360 of 2016

Sriram General Insurance Company Limited,

E-8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura,

Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302022 Branch Office,16,

Chintal House, Station Road, Lucknow through

its Manager.                                ...Appellant.

Versus

Mohd. Sayeed s/o Hazi Mohd. Basheer,

R/o Naurangabad Paschim, Sikandarau, Distt.

Hathras, Presently R/o Ekta Nagar Colony,

Behind Vineet Inter College Lane, Aligarh.  ..Respondent.                              

Before:

1- Hon’ble Mr. Vikas Saxena, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Mrs. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

For the Appellant   :  Sri Anand Bhargava, Advocate.

For the Respondent :  Sri Vikas Agarwal, Advocate.

Dated : 31.5.2023

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Vikas Saxena, Member: This appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2016 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Aligarh in complaint case no.202 of 2011,  Mohd. Sayeed vs.  Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. & ors., which awarded Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith compensation towards mental and physical harassment Rs.1,000.00 and cost Rs.1,000/-.

          The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the complainant purchased a truck no.UP 86 D-9741 for Rs.6,50,000.00 after taking financial help from ICICI Bank. The complainant got insured his truck with the appellant/ opposite parties for a sum of Rs.6,50,000.00 which was valid from 28.6.2010 to 27.6.2011. On 13.12.2010 the truck met

(2)

with an accident while going from Delhi to Jharkhand with driver Asif Khan and Kamaluddin Khan. After the accident the driver Asif Khan ranaway from the spot. The matter was reported to the police as well as the opposite parties and on the instruction of the opposite parties the truck was carried away from the accident spot to the authorized workshop and submitted estimate which was Rs.7,73,934.36. The entire formalities desired by the opposite parties have been completed by the complainant but the opposite parties denuded the driving license of the Kamaluddin particularly when Asif Khan was the driver at the time of alleged accident. As the opposite parties were not settling the matter, the complainant filed the complaint before the ld. District Commission.

          The opposite parties filed their written statement and denied the allegations leveled against them.  

The ld. District Commission after hearing both the parties allowed the complainant.  

Being aggrieved from the impugned order and judgment the insurance company/appellant preferred this appeal on the grounds that the impugned judgment and order is patently erroneous, legally perverse and without application of mind. The impugned judgment and order is based on surmises, conjectures and unjust. The impugned judgment is without appreciation of correct facts and law and is based on presumptions and assumption, hence, liable to be set aside.

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

From the repudiation letter dated 4.5.2011, it is clear that the appellant insurance company repudiated the claim on

(3)

the ground that at the time of accident Mr. Kamaluddin Khan was driving the vehicle although the name of Mr. Asif Khan was provided in the claim form and affidavit of the complainant as driver of the vehicle in question at the time of accident.

On the other hand, the complaints that Mr. Asif Khan was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and his name also appears in the survey report of the surveyor appointed by the insurance company. In this way, the main point of controversy is that who in fact was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident because driving license of Mr. Asif Khan has been presented by the complainant before the surveyor Mr. Ram Vir Singh and in the survey report dated 26.3.2011 at column 8, it appears that driving license was checked by the surveyor and it was found in order.

For finding this fact that who was actual driver at the time of said accident, we have gone through the documents submitted by both the parties. A copy of surveyor report dated 26.3.2011 has been submitted as annexure ‘3’ of the complaint. In column 5 of the report the name and address of driver has been provided. In it the name of Mr. Asif Khan s/o Hamid Khan has been mentioned as driver of the vehicle whose driving license was checked and found in order by the surveyor.

A copy of claim form has also been presented by the appellant insurance company in which admittedly, the name of driver has been mentioned that of Mr. Asif Khan. Thus, both the documents submitted by the appellant indicate that it was Mr. Asif Khan who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident per contra no cogent evidence has been submitted

(4)

by the appellant insurance company which can unequivocally points out that Mr. Kamaluddin was infact driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

          The appellant has submitted a copy of affidavit dated 3.5.2011 of Kamaluddin Khan wherein said Kamaluddin has admitted that he was driving the vehicle in question truck no.UP 86 D-9741 on the date and time of the accident. Besides this document, there is no other supporting evidence which can prove this fact that the said Kamaluddin was actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident without an effective and legal driving license.   

The ld. District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and passed the impugned judgment and order in which no interference is needed. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

If any amount is deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission for satisfying the decree as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.

    (Sudha Upadhyay)                (Vikas Saxena)                             

        Member                    Presiding Member

(5)

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to the Record Room.

    (Sudha Upadhyay)                (Vikas Saxena)                             

        Member                    Presiding Member

Jafri, PA I

Court 2