ANUPAM DASGUPTA

       This revision petition challenges the order dated 08.07.2010 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’).  By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent insurance company and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi (in short, ‘the District Forum’).

2.      The petitioner had approached the District Forum with a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent insurance company in that its insurance claim for recovering the cost of repairs to its vehicle damaged in an accident on 14.08.2002 was wrongly repudiated.  The insurance company had repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.  On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and the documents brought on record by the parties, the District Forum held that the driver of the vehicle (who died on the spot) was, in fact, in possession of a valid driving licence to drive the insured vehicle at the time of the accident.  It further observed that the amount of loss assessed by the Surveyor was higher than the cost of repairs claimed by the insured.  The District Forum directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-  (amount claimed by the complainant as the cost of repairs) with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 16.08.2002 (the date of report of the Surveyor) till realisation, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and    Rs. 2,000/- as cost.  This order was challenged by the respondent insurance company before the State Commission, with the result noticed above.

3.      I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. As observed by the District Forum, the only point of relevance is whether the driver of the insured vehicle possessed a valid driving licence to drive the insured vehicle at the time of the accident.  After careful perusal of the driving licence (Form 7) in question, I find that the driver Surender Kumar, s/o Balbir Singh was indeed an authorised LTV (light transport vehicle) driver, according to the specific endorsement dated 26.01.1998 of the Licensing Officer, Sonepat, Haryana and the said driving licence was valid till 18.12.2002.  This document was produced before the District Forum and consequently, the District Forum returned the finding mentioned above.  It is not clear how this obvious fact was completely missed in the proceedings before the State Commission.  Be that as it may.

4.      However, the District Forum has awarded both interest (@ 9% p.a.) on the amount of the insurance claimed as well as compensation of  Rs. 5,000/-.  The latter part of the award cannot be sustained. As a result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside.  The respondent insurance company is directed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.08.2002, till the date of payment and the cost of Rs. 5,000/- in all, including these proceedings.  This payment shall be made within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount payable to the complainant shall bear interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.