NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3819/2009

JAGMOHAN SINGH NEGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. B.S. RANJAN

12 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3819 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 21/04/2009 in Appeal No. 311/2008 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)
1. JAGMOHAN SINGH NEGIR/o Village Dhamwari P.O. Tikkri Tehsil Chirgaon, ShimlaH.P ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Through its Divisional Manager My the State Kaithu, ShimlaH.P-171001 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 12 Jan 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.

Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 21.04.2009 of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla allowing appeal against the District Forum’s order and dismissing the complaint. As may be seen from the order of State Commission, controversy before it centred around the issue as to how many persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time the accident took place. Alongwith revision petition, the petitioner has filed the copies of Investigator’s report, surveyor’s report and FIR recorded on the basis of statement of Guman Singh, one of the injured occupants. In its report, the Investigator has mentioned that 17 persons were being carried in the vehicle and two of them died in the accident. Names of 15 occupants have been mentioned. Surveyor in its report has also stated that the number of occupants of the vehicle at the time of incident was 17 which fact is supported by the above FIR. In this backdrop, State Commission had rightly disbelieved the certificate dated 19.09.2006 filed by the petitioner-complainant. State Commission also took note of the fact that petitioner was not travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident and he had not filed the affidavit of the driver touching the number of the occupants of the vehicle. Having heard Shri Ranjan, we do find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the CP Act, 1986. Dismissed.