LexM/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SUKH DEO YADAV
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1045 \ M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. A v. SUKH DEO YADAV Civil Appeal No. 1825 of 2009 MARCH 24, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] ~ Consumer Protection - Insurance claim - Motor Accident ~ - Damage of vehicle- Insurance claim by owner- Repudiation c of, since the driver not holding valid driving licence - Complaint by owner claiming that the said person was cleaner and vehicle was driven by his son holding valid licence-Allowed by forums below - On appeal held: Forums below did not consider the relevance of entries in case diary and post-mortem report in D .. -~ the proper perspective - Several documents including case . diary clearly shows that the said person who was driving the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence - Matter remitted to District Forum to adjudicate the matter afresh. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 1825 E of 2009 ) From the Judgement and Order dated 17.09.2007 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3034 of 2007. P.R. Sikka, Dhiraj, Reeta Dewan Puri, P.N. Puri, for the F Appellants. Sunil Fernades, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Rajat Jariwal, for the Respondent. + The Judgement of the Court was delivered by G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 1045 H 1l· 1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the ,.,. National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission, New 1 Delhi, (in short 'National Commission') dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer'). The National Commission upheld the order passed B by the Jharkhand State Consumer Redressal Commission, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'). 2. Background facts in a nutshell, as projected by the appellant, are as under: ~ -4< c Jeep No.JH-02-4827 was the subject matter of insurance with the appellant from 23.7.2003 to 22.7.2004. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 9.6.2004 and 14 persons were traveling in the Jeep, and four persons including the driver died on the spot and 10 persons received injuries. The jeep was D permitted to carry 10 passengers, but it was carrying 14 passengers. The news of the accident also flashed in Hindi Daily -4 ~ 'Hindustan' at the front page where the driver of jeep was shown asAmitabh alias Munna Singh aged about 25 years. Claim was lodged by Sukhdeo Yadav for damage of his vehicle and in E survey report the Surveyor/Investigator has mentioned in para 4 and 5 of the report that the driver of the jeep at the time of accident was Amitabh Singh. The claim was repudiated. The claim was repudiated on the basis of fraud played by ~ respondent as well as violation of terms and conditions of F Insurance Policy. Aggrieved by the said repudiation the respondent had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Koderma (in short 'District Forum') for insurance claim of his own damaged vehicle thereby stating thatAmitabh Singh G was a clearner in the vehicle, not driver and the jeep was being driven by Sanjeev Kumar. As per survey report Amitabh was • not holding a valid driving license and to evade the third party claims for 4 dead and 10 injured, the respondent has substituted his son Sanjeev Kumar as driver. The District Forum has passed H an order, accepting the claim which was confirmed by the State M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. V 1047 SUKH DEO YADAV [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] Commission and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of A Rs.2, 70,000/- plus 10% interest towards compensation. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had filed revision petiton before the National Commission which was dismissed in limine thereby endorsing the order passed by 8 State Commission. According to the appellant the National Commission did not deal with the plea of fraud played by respondent in this case. 3. According to the appellant the records including the case diary clearly show that the vehicle was being driven by Munna c Singh who did not have a valid driving license. When the vehicle was being driven on 9.6.2004 by the aforesaid Munna Singh it was involved in a head on collusion. The District Forum and the State Commission did not consider the evidentiary value of the case diary which was produced. In several documents it was D clearly not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.