Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant being owner of vehicle Tata Indica car has purchased a insurance policy covering the period from 07.11.2007 to 06.11.2008. It is alleged inter-alia that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident and thereafter the matter was reported to the OP but the OP repudiated the same stating that the driver has no valid driving license. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating that they have made survey and surveyor has computed the loss. Since, the driver has no valid driving license they have repudiated the claim. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
We, therefore, allow the case of the complainant and direct the OP Insurance Company to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,728/-(Rupees Twelve thousand seven hundred twenty eight) with interest at the rate of 6(six) per cent per annum with effect from 24.09.2008 that is the date of filing of this case till the date of actual payment, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9( nine) per cent per annum on the said amount from the said date till the date of payment.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version and evidence of the OP with proper perspectives. According to him the driver has got light motor vehicle license but there is no authorization to drive transport vehicle. Since, he has no effective and valid driving license, it has violated the policy condition. Therefore, the repudiation is legal and proper. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all these facts and law. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the vehicle met accident and during currency of the policy and the surveyor has already opined that the driver is not authorized to drive transport vehicle. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Mukund Dewangan - Vrs-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. In Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 disposed of on 03.07.2017 where their Lordship observed that the driver if has got light motor vehicle but driving license has no endorsement authorizing to drive transport vehicle or non transport vehicle, same cannot be ground to repudiate claim. Learned District Forum has also analyzed the case and come to same conclusion and therefore with due regard to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India we find no error in the finding of the learned District Forum on such issue. Learned counsel for the appellant placed that it is settled principle of law that the surveyor’s report should be accepted. The amount of settlement by the surveyor can be the basis for computing the loss of the vehicle. Therefore the repudiation on this point by the OP is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. At the same time the surveyor has computed the loss and it is just and proper and therefore it is accepted.
Thus, we are of the view that we affirm the impugned order and direct the entire order be complied within 45 days from the date of issue of this order.
The appeal is dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
