Jharkhand

StateCommission

A/13/2016

The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nadia Nand Yadav - Opp.Party(s)

M/s Manish Kumar & Amit Mishra

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RANCHI
FINAL ORDER
 
First Appeal No. A/13/2016
(Arisen out of Order Dated 02/12/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/09/2013 of District Dumka)
 
1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager
Deoghar Branch, Sita Complex, Near Government Bus Stand, Deoghar, P.O.- Deoghar
Deoghar
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Nadia Nand Yadav
R/o- Village- Kusumghata, P.O.- Kusughata, P.S.- Maslia
Dumka
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. Merathia PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Shabnam Perveen MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
 
For the Respondent:
ORDER

14-03-2016- Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. – Appellant (Insurance Company for short) on the prayer for condoning the delay of about 26 days in filing this appeal as well as on merits.

  1. The case of the Complainant in short was that his claim has been repudiated wrongly on the ground that the driver did not possess driving licence to drive tractor – trailer, on the date of the accident; and the vehicle was used on public road as commercial vehicle, in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act.
  1. Mr. Manish Kumar supported the said grounds of repudiation.
  1. It appears that the Complainant filed attested copy of the driving licence, the genuineness of which was not challenged. However, according to the Insurance Company there should be specific authorization to drive the tractor with trailer. But the driving licence disclosed that the driver was authorized to drive Heavy Motor Vehicle also, by endorsement on the licence dated 08.06.2009, which could not be disputed.
  1. The Insurance Company produced a copy of another driving licence in support of its contention that such endorsement was necessary.  But it appears that such authorization was required only for the holder of Light Motor Vehicle.
  1. In the circumstances, learned District Forum rightly held that driver was authorized to drive tractor attached with trailer.
  1. However, it held that the tractor attached with trailer used for transporting on public road was in violation of limitation as to use, as per the policy. Accordingly, it directed the Insurance Company, to pay the claim on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the amount of loss assessed by the surveyor of the Insurance Company, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the case i.e. 12.02.2003 and also Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost.
  1.  After hearing Mr. Manish Kumar and perusing the materials brought before us, in our opinion, even if, the delay of about 26 days in filing this appeal is ignored, no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned order.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,

Dated:- 14-03-2016

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. Merathia]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Shabnam Perveen]
MEMBER

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.