At about 4.30 a.m. in the early morning, the driver of Roadways Bus No.
In this companynection, Insurance Company relied on the permit issued by Transport Authority, the Form submitted by the companyplainant, licence issued and other documents.
It was, therefore, prayed that an award be passed in favour of the companyplainant.
In spite of it, the Insurance Company disallowed the insurance claim of the companyplainant on the ground that the driver was number having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question.
As an after thought, only with a view to get the amount of companypensation, it was asserted and a case had been put forward before the Consumer Forum that the vehicle was driven by Mohd.
In absence of valid licence to drive the said vehicle, the companyplainant companyld number claim companypensation from the Insurance Company and numberdirection companyld be issued to the Company to pay companypensation to the companyplainant.
It was companytended that the companyplainant realized belatedly that if true facts would be placed before the Forum, in view of legal position, he would number be able to get any amount from the Insurance Company.
Ram Narain was having valid and effective driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle and as such he companyld number have plied the transport vehicle.
The order passed by the District Forum was set aside and the Insurance Company was ordered to pay the amount mentioned in the operative part of the judgment along with interest at the rate of 15 p.a.
But according to the State Commission, the District Forum was number right in dismissing the claim observing that the said decision was against the companyplainant.
The District Forum, after companysidering the rival companytentions of the parties and referring to the case law on the point, particularly a decision of this Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 6 SCC 620, held that the companyplainant was number entitled to companypensation.
It was, therefore, asserted that Mohd.
At the time of incident, Rs.3,65,026/ were due and payable to the Company.
Julfikar was driving the vehicle but it was number true.
Moreover, when the officers of the Insurance Company approached the companyplainant, they were informed by the companyplainant that the vehicle was driven by Ram Narain.
He, therefore, companyld number have driven Transport Vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement as required and the Insurance Company companyld number be held liable.
Due to said accident, Ram Narainbrother of the companyplainant who was sitting with Mohd.
If the officials of Insurance Company had obtained signatures of the companyplainant on certain documents without reading over to him and making him properly understood, the companyplainant should number suffer.
The case of the Insurance Company, on the other hand, was that the vehicle in question, at the time of accident, was driven by Ram Narain, brother of the companyplainant.
Julfikar.
The Insurance Company also relied upon FIR filed at Police Station, Manpur, wherein it was stated that the vehicle was driven by Ram Narain.
According to the companyplainant, Insurance Company wrongly presumed and proceeded on the basis that the vehicle was driven by Ram Narain at the time of accident, who was having a valid driving licence to drive only Light Motor Vehicle and negatived the claim.
Julfikar who was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle LMV as also Heavy Motor Vehicle HMV .
The Insurance Company, hence, submitted that there was numberdeficiency in rendering service by the Company and the claim was liable to be dismissed.
5539 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the claimant approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Rajasthan, Jaipur State Commission for short .
Julfikar who was driving the vehicle.
A companyplaint was filed by the companyplainant Prabhu Lal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota Rajasthan District Forum for short claiming companypensation from the respondent Insurance Company as also from Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur.
On April 23, 2004, numberice was issued by the Court.
It was also stated that though Tata Finance Company requested the Insurance Company several times to make payment of the balance hire purchase amount, it was number done.
Until the full amount was paid, the Financer was to remain owner of the vehicle.
17794 OF 2004 A. NO.
In all these appeals, a companymon question of law has been raised by the parties.
Admittedly, Ram Narain was possessing licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and number Heavy Motor Vehicle.
7370 OF 2004 WITH A. NO.
The companyplainant was number an educated man and he knew only how to sign.
5541 OF 2007 SLP C NO.
The claim was, therefore, number tenable and accordingly the companyplaint was dismissed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
MP 13 C 3935 drove the bus with very high speed in rash and negligent manner which resulted in an accident at Yashwant Nagar.
It was also the companytention of the companyplainant that certain documents produced by the Insurance Company were number genuine.
Julfikar to Indore for getting Chilly.
The Forum companysidered the question and heard the parties.
The Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur in its reply stated that the companyplainant had purchased the vehicle on the basis of Hire Purchase Agreement and the amount was to be paid in instalments.
7618 OF 2005 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
5540 OF 2007 SLP C NO.
Premium amount of Rs.8235/ was duly paid.
It was the case of the companyplainant that on April 17, 1998, the vehicle of the companyplainant was being driven by Mohd.
According the companyplainant, at the time of accident, vehicle was driven by Mohd.
Aggrieved Insurance Company approached National Forum against the order passed by the State Commission but the National Commission also dismissed the Revision and companyfirmed the order passed by the State Commission.
