Haryana

StateCommission

A/419/2015

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HYGIENE FEEDS - Opp.Party(s)

D.C.KUMAR

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No.419 of 2015

Date of Institution: 06.05.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 12.01.2017

 

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office Rajguru Market LIC Building near Bus Stand Panipat Bhiwani through Shri S.P.Singh, Regional Manager, TheOriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, LIC Building IIfloor Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

M/s Hygiene Feeds having its registered office at Village Adlana Tehsil Madlauda District Panipat and Head office 167-A Latif Garden Assandh road Panipat through its Partner Jitender Dahiya S/o Lakhmi Ram.l

                                       …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                               

 

Present:              Mr.D.C.Kumar, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Rahul Jaswal, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          It was alleged by the complainant that  it’s truck bearing registration No.HR-67-9683 was insured by opposite party (O.P.) which was valid from 23.12.2010 to 22.12.2011.  On 25.02.2011 truck met with an accident and was badly damaged. Surveyor appointed by O.P took all the documents and assessed the loss.  It was assured that claim would be accepted very shortly, but, the matter was put off under one pretext or the other.  O.p. be directed to pay Rs.1,88,050/- for damage of vehicle and Rs.50,000/- for mental harassment etc.  besides Rs.11,000/- as of litigation expenses. 

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that at the time of accident the truck was being driven by one Krishan S/o Hari Ram R/o village Adiyana, District Panipat.  He was having two driving licences bearing Nos.78800/P and 409/FKD/2000 and on verification it was found that licence No.78800/P was valid for scooter, car and jeep only.  Record of DL NO.409/FKD/2000 was not available with licencing authority Farukabad.  In this way driver was not having valid licence to drive goods carrying/commercial vehicle.  As per terms and conditions of insurance policy, it was not supposed to compensate insured in case vehicle was being driven by person without  valid driving licence.  Accident took place on 25.02.2011 and FIR was lodged on 02.03.2011 i.e. after six days. As per surveyor the loss was to the tune of Rs.1,14,096.58 paise, so complainant was not entitled for any compensation. Objections about  locus standi, concealment of material facts, estopple, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 08.04.2015 and directed  the opposite parties to pay the insured amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.P. has preferred this appeal on the ground that driver of insured vehicle were not having valid driving licence at the time of accident.  District forum has granted compensation beyond the relief claimed by the complainant.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of licence Ex.P-10, issued by Licencing Authority, Farukabad, driver Krishan was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. As per endorsement in Ex.P-10 he was allowed to drive motor cycle, LMV, transport vehicle. So learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above and the appeal be dismissed.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  Initially complainant produced licence of Krishan issued by Licencing Authority, Panipat copy of which is Ex.P-9. When it was found that there was no endorsement therein about truck so it produced Ex.P-10.  When insurance company sought information from Licencing Authority Farukabad, it was reported that there was no record  pertaining to licence NO.409/FKD/2000 as mentioned above, copy of which is Ex.C-9.  When driver was already having licence Ex.P-9 issued by Licencing Authority, Panipat what was the necessity to obtain another driving licence from Farukabad.  Even as per law a person cannot obtain two licences at the same time. More so when complainant was resident of Panipat what was the necessity to go to Farukabad to obtain the licence. This fact itself creates doubt about genuineness of Ex. P-10. It is opined by Hon’ble National Commission in  Revision petition No.408 of 2010 titled as Jai Parkash Goyal Vs. the united India Insurance Co. Ltd. decided on 11.03.2010 (case law cited by the counsel for the appellant) that if a person is resident of one place, but, is obtaining licence from another place then the genuineness of that licence is doubtful. When there was specific report about driving licence Ex.P-10 it was bounden duty of the complaint to prove the same.  Learned District forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects and came to conclusion that driving licence was valid  at the time of accident. Even otherwise complainant requested to pay Rs.1,88,050/- only whereas learned District Forum granted insured value i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-. District forum was not supposed to grant more relief then claimed.  So impugned order dated 08.04.2015 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

January 12th, 2017 Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                  Member                                              Judicial Member                                                       Addl. Bench                                      Addl.Bench              

S.K.