vs. New India Assurance Company Ors.
held that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim of the appellant.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows The appellant was the owner of the Maruti Van bearing Registration No.
In an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the State Commission reversed the said judgment holding that the driver of the vehicle did number have a valid driving licence and his original licence was a fake which was inadvertently renewed by the District Transport Officer, therefore, following the judgment of the National Commission reported in 1996 1 CPR 81 NC Raj Kumar and Anr.
While allowing the said appeal, the State Commission set aside an order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jehanabad District Forum whereby the District Forum had allowed a claim of the appellant and directed the respondent Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/ as damages suffered by the appellant due to the loss of his motor vehicle and further directed the payment of Rs.5,000/ as companypensation and Rs.1,000/ as companyt of the litigation.
With the said intimation, the appellant also lodged a claim with the respondent for payment of damages.
The Insurance Company as per its letter dated 10th of December, 1996 repudiated the said claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the driver did number have a valid licence at the time of the incident in question.
It is the case of the appellant that on 25.4.1996 at about 9.30 p.m. while returning from Gaya to Jehanabad the vehicle in question caught fire due to mechanical reasons and due to the said fire the said vehicle was burnt beyond repair.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP No.21910 of 2001 SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Leave granted.
BR 2/5667 which was insured with the respondent Insurance Company.
The District Forum after hearing the parties came to the companyclusion that the accidental fire due to which the appellants vehicle got damaged was number caused due to any act of the appellants driver but was due to mechanical fault, therefore, it held the companytention of the Insurance Company that the appellants driver did number hold a valid licence companyld number be a ground to repudiate the claim, accordingly, ordered the payment of damage, companypensation and companyt as stated herein above.
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi National Commission whereby the National Commission dismissed his revision petition filed against the judgment and order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar State Commission which in turn had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Insurance Company before it.
An intimation of this accidental fire was made to the respondent Insurance Company on 14.5.1996.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
A revision petition filed by the appellant against the said judgment of the National Commission came to be dismissed by the National Commission by the impugned order wherein the National Commission placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Shimla vs. Kamla Ors.
