M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSUKH DEO YADAV

                                      [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
..       -~     the proper perspective - Several documents including case D
              . 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.
                                                                                F
                   P.R. Sikka, Dhiraj, Reeta Dewan Puri, P.N. Puri, for the
               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
                                                                        -4           ~
    passengers. The news of the accident also flashed in Hindi Daily
    '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
    survey report the Surveyor/Investigator has mentioned in para
E
    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
    Insurance Policy.
F
          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
    an order, accepting the claim which was confirmed by the State
H
         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 noted that the vehicle was being driven by Munna Singh
and not by Sanjeev Kumar as claimed. Sanjeev Kumar is the
son of the owner of the Jeep. Particular reference is made to
the case diary wherein it has been stated as follow:
     "In the accident deceased Amitabh Singh Alias Munna            E
     Singh S/o Late shri Muzzafar Singh R/o Viii. Simar Sol.
     P.S. Rajelly. The post mortem report of deceased is below:
     ii) Name of the deceased, Sub-name, Father's name,
     Residence, age, sex: Deceased Amitabh alias Munna
     Singh Sia Late Shri Muzafar Singh R/o Viii. Simar Kol          F
     P.S. Rajauli Distt. Nawada at present driver of jeep
     No.JH02-A-4827 age aboul22 years Male, Hindu."
       4. Similarly, in the post~mortem report it has been stated
as follows:                                                         G
"2. Name of the deceased, surname       Deceased Amitabh Singh
Father name, Age, Sex.                  Alias Munna Singh
                                        S/o Late Shri Muzaffir
                                        Singh S/o Simar Kaul
                                        P.S. Rajauli, Distt.        H
    1048      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2009] 4 S.C.R.


A                                           Nawada at present                 ~


                                            Driver Commander jeep        -I
                                            No.JH-02A-4827
                                            Age 22 yrs. Male,
                                            Hindu."
B        5. Learned counsel for the appellant highlighted these facts
    to submit that they were completely ignored by the District
    Forum, State Commission and the National Commission.

           6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
c submitted that there are several documents including the claim
                                                                         ~        -....
    petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased
    Amitabh Singh and Munna Singh showing that the vehicle was
    being driven by Sanjeev Kumar.
          7. From a bare perusal of the orders passed by the District
D   Forum, State Commission and the National Commission it is
    clear that the relevance of the entries in the case diary and the
                                                                         .. -
    post-mortem report have not been considered in the proper
    perspective.
          8. In the peculiar facts of the case it would be appropriate
E   for the District Forum to reconsider the matter after taking into
    account the various documents and materials placed by the
    parties. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remit
    the matter to the District Forum to adjudicate the matter afresh.
    Since the matter is pending for long, the District Forum is
F   directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the
    date of receipt of order after due notice to the parties. We make
    it clear that we have remitted the matter because of non-
    consideration of certain materials and documents. But we have
    not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
G
           9. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

    N.J.                                        Appeal disposed of.