APPEAL NO: 1936/2008


The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

3rd floor,Anand Bhawan,

Sansar Chander Road, Jaipur

through its Regional Manager

Opposite party-appellant


Vs.

Sharwan Kumar Mangava

r/o Dhani Mangava Wali

Post Jairampura,

Teh.Srimadhopur Distt.Sikar.

Complainant-respondent


Date of judgment 9.7.09


Before:


Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg- President

Mrs.Vimla Sethia-Member


Mr.Pratap Singh Arya counsel for the appellants

Mr.Sumer Singh counsel for the respondent


BY THE STATE COMMISSION


This appeal has been filed by the appellants Insurance Co. against order dated 19.8.08 passed by the District Forum, Sikar in complaint no. 31/08 by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed inter alia holding that in vehicle bearing registration no. RJ 23 UA 0410 the driver was Subhash Chand at the time of accident who was having a valid licence and

2


directions were given to the complainant respondent to produce the necessary papers pertained to the demage of the vehicle to the appellants Insurance Co. and after making the assessment from the surveyor, the claim of the complainant would be settled by the appellants Insurance Co. and if from the settlement made by the appellants the complainant was not satisfied, he would be free to file a fresh complaint.


2. It arises in the following circumstances -


That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum,Sikar on 10.1.08 inter alia stating that his jeep bearing registration no. RJ 23 UA 0410 was got insured with the appellants Insurance Co. for the period 22.4.06 to 21.4.07 for a sum of Rs. 3,79,100/-. It was further stated in the complaint that the said jeep had met with an accident on 11.2.07 with the roadways bus for which FIR bearing no. 36/07 was lodged on behalf of the roadways with the Police Station Ringas Distt. Sikar and the police after investigation had given notice u/ss 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the owner of the vehicle who had stated that at the time of accident Subhash Chand was the driver of the jeep and the police after investigation had filed a challan for committing offence u/s 279, 337, 338 CRPC against the driver of the jeep namely Subhash Chand and police had further come to the conclusion that at the time of accident the driver of the jeep in question was Subhash Chand. It was further stated in the complaint that the claim of the complainant respondent was repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 5.12.07 on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the jeep was Suresh

3


Kumar who was not having a valid driving licence and since as per the case of the complainant respondent he had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,06,213/- and for that complaint was filed.


A reply was filed by the appellants before the District Forum, Sikar on 17.7.08 and they have taken the same pleas which were taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 5.12.07 and it was prayed that claim was rightly repudiated by the appellants and complaint be dismissed.


After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Sikar through impugned order dated 19.8.08 had allowed the complaint of the complainant respondent inter alia holding that since from the police challan the fact that the driver of the jeep was Subhash Chand is well established, therefore, it was held that on the date of accident Subhash Chand was the driver of the jeep and not Suresh Kumar.


Aggrieved from the said order dated 19.8.08 passed by the District Forum,Sikar this appeal has been filed by the appellants Insurance Company.


3. In this appeal the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the findings recorded by the District Forum by which it was held that at the time of accident the driver of the jeep in question was Subhash Chand are not final one and further if the police had come to the conclusion that at the time of accident Subhash Chand was the driver of the jeep, that could not be said to be final as the appellants had found during investigation that at the time of accident Suresh Kumar was the

4



driver of the jeep who was not having a valid driving licence and the claim of the complainant respondent was rightly repudiated by the appellants on ground of licence and thus the District Forum had committed serious error and illegality in allowing the complaint of the complainant respondent in the manner as stated above and the impugned order could not be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed.


4. In our considered opinion the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants carries no weight at all as when the police after investigation had come to the conclusion that the driver of the jeep at the time of accident was Subhash Chand, therefore, for purpose of disposal of claim of the complainant respondent , the appellants Insurance Co. must have taken into consideration that fact and thus the case of the appellants Insurance Co. that the driver of the jeep was Suresh Kumar and not Subhash Chand could not be accepted.


7. For the reasons stated above, the appellants were not justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent complainant on the ground that at the time of accident Suresh Kumar was the driver of the jeep who was not having a valid driving licence and the appellants have repudiated the claim of the complainant respondent without any basis and on wrong assumption and in an arbitrary manner and in view of this, the findings of the District Forum allowing the complaint of the complainant respondent are liable to be confirmed as they are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence available on record and they do not



5


suffer from any basic infirmity, illegality or perversity and this appeal deserves to be dismissed .


Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.



Member Presidents