NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4518/2009

KUMARI KANTA EKKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

MR. K.K. SRIVASTAVA

28 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4518 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 01/08/2009 in Appeal No. 194/2009 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. KUMARI KANTA EKKAKunkuriJashpur(C.G.) ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Divisional Office, Parmanand Bhawan, G.E.RoadDurg(C.G.) ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 28 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.

Delay of two days in filing revision petition is condoned subject to just exceptions. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 1.8.2009 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur dismissing appeal against the order dated 7.3.2009 of a District Forum whereby complaint was dismissed. Vehicle bearing registration No. CG-07-M-1657 owned by the petitioner/complainant was insured with the respondent/opposite party-insurance company for the period from 23.12.2007 to 22.12.2008 and it met with an accident on 20.01.2008. On claim made under the policy not being settled, complaint was filed by the petitioner which was contested by the insurance company. Reading of the orders passed by fora below would show that FIR in regard to the accident was lodged by Uttara Kumar, one of the passengers in the vehicle. FIR notices that the total number of passengers including the driver at the time of accident was 23. Petitioner filed the claim form wherein against column No. 2(A)(b), she admitted that at the time of accident the vehicle was being used as taxi. It is not in dispute that vehicle was insured and registered as a private vehicle. Considering the said facts as also the fact that driver was not holding a valid licence, the fora below non-suited the petitioner. Having heard Sri Srivastava, we do not find any illegality or jurisdiction error in the order passed by fora below in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER