LexNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus J. MAHESHWARAMMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 524 A NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 8 v. J. MAHESHWARAMMA (Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2009) MAY 8, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Insurance policy - C Fatal accident - Compensation, claim of - Plea that licence of deceased was fabricated; and policy holder had driving licence to drive tractor trailer and not motor cycle with gear - Award of compensation by forums below holding that deceased had valid insurance policy, accident took place and o insured died during validity of the said policy, thus, driving licence was fabricated, is of no effect - More so, insurance company did not discharge the burden to prove that licence was fabricated - National Commission also holding that deceased had licence to drive motor cycle - On appeal, held: E Said finding by National Commission not maintainable - As such question of insurance company having not discharged the burden, does not arise - Instant case is of contractual liability - Thus, matter remitted to National Commission to consider in light of Laxmi Narain Dhut's case. F National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. 2004 (3) SCC 297, Held inapplicable. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lehru and Ors. 2003 (3) SCC 338 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi G Narain Dhut 2007 (4) SCALE 36, referred to. Case Law Reference: 2004 (3) sec 297 Referred to Para 13 H 524 i NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. J. 525 MAHESHWARAMMA 2003 (3) SCC 338 . Referred to Para 15 A 2001 (4) SCALE 36 Held inapplicable Para 21 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 3.9.2007 of the National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2708 of 2007. M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat and Dhiraj for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted. B c 2. This appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and D order dated 3.9.2007 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'th.e National Commission'). 3. The said National Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction refused to interfere with the concurrent E findings of both the District Forum and the State Commission. 4. The facts which were alleged in the complaint filed before the District Forum, Mehboob Nagar, are as follows: 5. The husband of the complainant late Beesana, obtained policy bearing No.6200001644/2005 from the National Insurance Company Limited for Rs.1,00,000/-. The policy covers the risk of accidental death of insured. The legal heir of F the insured will get Rs.1,00,000/- under the policy. The policy holder died on 24.11.2005 in a road accident while he was G l proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 22-J278 from Gadwal to Veerapoor. On the way in the limits of PJP Colony, where the tractor bearing No. AP 22 C 3422 which was coming from the opposite side, came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle of Beesanna and . H 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A Beesanna sustained fatal injuries. The doctors advised to shift him to Kurnool hospital. While on the way to Kurnool hospital, Beesanna succumbed to the injuries. 6. Thereafter, the complainant submitted Claim Form of the B appellant herein along with all other relevant documents. 7. The main contention raised by the appellant before the District Forum was that the deceased had no valid licence at the time of accident. The fact that late Beesanna obtained the policy to cover a risk to the third parties, own damages and c personal accident is not disputed by the appellant. It is also not in dispute that at the time of accident, the insurance policy was valid. 8. It is not in dispute that as per the terms of the policy, D the nominee will get Rs.1,00,000/- if the policy holder dies in a motor accident . 9. The stand of the appellant is that the driving licence of the deceased which was sent for verification is found to be E fabricated. Their further stand is that the policy holder had got driving licence to drive Tractor Trailer (Transport) but had no licence to drive motorcycle with gear. 10. Before the District Forum, the stand of the appellant ; was that Exhibit B-1, the licence of the deceased purports to F be a fabricated one created in favour of the deceased for the pu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.