AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AGGRIEVED by the order dated 31.10.2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 1056/2010, the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the respondent Insurance Company against the order dated 2.9.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirupati by which order the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint of the complainant on the non -standard basis going by the decision of the Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., 2010 2 CPJ 9(Decision dated 25.3 2010 in Civil Appeal No. 2703/2010) with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 5,36,428 along with interest@9%p.a. from 2.9.2009 till the date of realization together with cost of Rs. 3,000. In appeal, the State Commission on consideration of the pleas put forwarded by the Insurance Company came to the conclusion that the repudiation of the insurance claim was justified because there was gross violation not only of the terms and conditions of the policy but also of the provision of Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inasmuch as it was established on record that the person (cleaner) who was driving the vehicle in question at the relevant time when the accident had taken place, did not hold any licence to drive the vehicle in question. The State Commission accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
WE have heard Counsel for the petitioner and have considered her submissions. She only submits that the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy could be waived by the respondent Insurance Company and the claim could have been settled at least on non -standard basis, if not, as full claim going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (decision dated 25.3.2010 in Civil Appeal No.2703/2010). We have noted down these submissions only to be rejected because if the nature and kind of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy did not entitle the petitioner even the settlement of his claim even on ''non -standard basis''. The breach being of fundamental in nature, we see no merit in these contentions. The order passed by the State Commission is justified on record and does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference of this Commission.