NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1602 OF 2012
(Against the order dated 03.02.2012 in First Appeal No. FA/12/24 of the
Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur)
1. Amal Sai S/o Late Birjhu
2. Smt. Pancho W/o Late Birjhu
Both R/o Village Basen,
Post Jigdi, P.S.& Tehsil Rajpur
Distt. Balrampur (C.G.) ... Petitioner
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Branch Brahma Road,
Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, C.G.
2. Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank
Through Branch Manager,
Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Through Branch Manager,
Branch Pasta, PS. & Tehsil
Rajpur, Dist. Balrampur (C.G.) ... Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate
Pronounced on : 2nd November, 2012
ORDER
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
1. Shri Amal Sai and Smt. Pancho are the owners of a tractor with trolly attached. They had taken loan from Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, opposite party No. 2. The above said tractor was insured by United India Insurance Company Limited, opposite party No. 1. The said tractor met with an accident on 26.3.2009 and it was damaged considerably. The complainants claimed damages from the opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 refused to pay the claim on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by opposite party No. 1.
2. The complainants filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service by respondents. The complaint was dismissed. The complainants filed an appeal through registered post to the State Commission, Raipur. They were under the impression that the learned State Commission would send a notice for hearing in their favour. However, no such notice was received.
3. Through this revision petition, they have challenged the order passed by the State Commission dated 3.2.2012.
4. None appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, the Commission received a letter on behalf of the petitioners stating that they were not in a position to appear before this Commission and prayed for engagement of an advocate on their behalf. Consequently, Ms. Sara Sundaram, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that she has sent a letter to the petitioners but she did not receive any response. She argued that she is not assisted by her client. She stated that she even does not have the policy.
5. We have gone through the record. It is apparent that at the time of the accident, its driver did not have the effective and valid driving licence. He was having driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle only. Consequently, the claim filed by the complainants found no favour even with the District Forum or with the State Commission. The order of the State Commission clearly goes to reveal that it had sent the SPC for the date of hearing but none appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The State Commission did not find any substance in the appeal and dismissed the same.
6. The District Forum in its paras 18 and 19 as per English version mentioned as follows.
“18. In the documents exh. A-7, A-8 and A-9 filed on behalf of complainant, it has been mentioned that at the time of accident, vehicle Tractor No. CG 15 A/4137 and Trolley No. CG 15 A/4138 was not being driven by Rajesh Dass, it was being driven by Ramdass. Rajesh was sitting in the trolley of vehicle, however in the document exh. D-5 (1) filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, Rajesh Panka was driving the vehicle on 26.3.2009 at the time of accident, who expired in this accident. Complainants did not make any objection immediately after the accident that Rajesh Panika was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and after a long period, in an after-thought manner, to get the benefit of insurance, it has been shown that the vehicle in question was being driven by Ram Dass and sent the Exh. A-7, A-8 to Inspector General of Police, Sarguja Range on 5.10.2009 to Superintendent of Police, Ambikapur on 12.5.2009. In these circumstances, it is not found reliable that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by Ram Dass. Complainants has not produced the driving license of Rajesh Panika, vehicle driver, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident as mentioned in the Exh. D-5.
(1) In these situations, it is found established that condition of Insurance policy were violated.
19. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that Ram Dass was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident, then in these situations, it is to mention that the photocopy of driving license of Ram Dass relates to the driving license of light vehicle. In these situations, he was not authorized to drive the above-said tractor at the time of accident. In this manner, on the basis of above, it is found established that conditions of Insurance policy were violated.”
7. No evidence was produced to rebut these findings.
8. The revision petition is sans merits and therefore we dismiss the same.
…………Sd/-…………….
(J. M. MALIK, J.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
…………Sd/-……………
(VINAY KUMAR)
MEMBER
Naresh/reserved
