National consumer disputes redressalcommission new delhi


REVISION PETITION NO. 1979 OF 2012



Download 3.18 Mb.
Page20/66
Date09.11.2016
Size3.18 Mb.
1   ...   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   ...   66

      REVISION PETITION NO. 1979 OF 2012

(From the order dated 31.01.2012 in First Appeal No. 1162/2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, Haryana, Panchkula)

 

Puneet Phutela, S/o. Sh. Roshan Lal 316, Housing Board Colony Baldev Nagar, Ambala City

… Petitioner

                                             Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, LIC Building, 2nd Floor Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt Through Sh. R.K.P. Raj Pal, Regional Manager

      … Respondent

 BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER


          HON’BLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 

For the Petitioner   :  Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate                                                  


PRONOUNCED ON  8TH JULY, 2014 

O R D E R

JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Mr. Puneet  Phutela,  the complainant, purchased a Truck,  which met with an accident, on 14.06.2004, during the subsistence of the insurance  policy.  The Surveyor  assessed the loss of the Truck in the sum of Rs.1,39,587/-, for repairs.   The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP, repudiated  the claim of  the complainant, on the ground that the driving licence of the driver was found to be invalid. 

2.      The  District Forum  allowed the complaint and directed the Insurance Co., OP, to pay a sum of Rs.1,99,591/- as claimed by the complainant  along  with interest  @ 9% p.a, from  the date of lodging of the claim, till its payment.  It  also  imposed  litigation expenses in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and awarded damages in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.

 

3.      The State Commission, however, accepted the appeal filed by the insurance company and dismissed the complaint.


 

4.      We have heard the  counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case.  The case of the insurance company is that the driving licence was issued in  favour of  the driver from  Licencing Authority, Ambala  for  Motor  Car. The endorsement  of HTV  mentioned on the alleged driving licence was found to be fake.  The Licencing Authority, Barielly,  confirmed  this  fact.   

 

5.      At  the first occasion,  the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the endorsement  made by RTO, Barielly is correct.  We called for RTO’s report  and  even sent  Bailable Warrants against him. However, he did not turn up. Subsequently, it came to our notice that some reports are  already on the record.  The Affidavit of Sh.  Rajeev  Kumar   Saxena,  Surveyor, is on the record.  Para 3 of his affidavit is relevant and it is reproduced here, as under :-


3. That the deponent visited the office of RTO/Licensing Authority, Bareilly, and applied for the verification of said driving license No.821/74-75 with a written application.  After permission, I physically verified the official record maintained by the office with the concerned clerk. The office of the RTO/ Licensing Authority, Bareilly refused to give its written report about the particulars of driving license and its effectiveness and validity since there was no entry about any such license or endorsement.  As per my physical inspection and verification of the concerned record, no such endorsement for HTV on any license in the name of Sh. Roshan Lal, S/o. Sh. Amar Nath was issued by the said office and hence the alleged endorsement is fake”.

 

6.      Thereafter, there is report from the Manager, Oriental  Bank of India, dated  08.07.2005.  The evidence already produced on record is enough.  It clearly goes to show  that  the license of the petitioner is a ‘bogus’ one.  It was his duty to get another copy of the record, if any, and place the affidavit of the person concerned who had issued it. 


 

7.      The  driving  licence  goes  to show that  he was not permitted to

drive HTV.  His license was not valid for truck.  His license was prepared  at  Ambala  and  renewed  at Barielly, the proper evidence should come on the record. The affidavit of Surveyor, Rajeev Kumar  Saxena, remains unrebutted on record. 

 

8.      We  have no reason to disbelieve the same.  The order passed by the State  Commission  is well reasoned.  It has also taken support from the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal, 2009 (3) CPC 12 (SC).  The revision petition is without merit and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.



………….(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER

………… (DR. S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER

 dd/1

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

 

REVISION  PETITION NO.   2531   OF  2014


 (Against the order dated  12.03.2014 in Appeal No.428/2012 of the State Commission, Rajasthan)

 

Shri Om Prakash S/o Shri Babu Lal Gupta R/o 65, Chetan Enclave Phase-II, Jaipur Road District Alwar


                                                               ....... Petitioner

  Versus

Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta S/o Shri Shyam Mohan Gupta Civil Engineer, R/o 4/2, Kala Kaun Housing Board Arawali Vihar District Alwar (Rajasthan)

                                                …... Respondent

 BEFORE: 

      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER


      HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA MEMBER


For the Petitioner             :     Mr. Baljeet Singh, Advocate 

Pronounced on :  8th July,  2014 


ORDER



Share with your friends:
1   ...   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   ...   66


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page