JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER

            This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission  Chhatisgarh dated 26.04.2016 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner insurance company against the order of the District Forum Bastar at Jagdalpur.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent complainant purchased an insurance policy in respect of his vehicle Tata 709 bearing registration no. CG17-H_1303 from the petitioner insurance company.  The insurance was effective w.e.f. 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014.  On 01.02.2014, the insured vehicle met with an accident and sustained complete damage.  The accident was reported to the police and FIR was registered at PS Kanker.  The respondent complainant submitted insurance claim. The petitioner appointed a surveyor who submitted his report.  The petitioner, however, repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that at the time of accident, the complainant, who was driving the vehicle, was not having a valid driving license and it amounted to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  Being aggrieved of repudiation of insurance claim, the respondent filed the consumer complaint.

3.         The petitioner opposite party in the written statement admitted that subject vehicle was insured and during the currency of the insurance policy, it met with an accident resulting in heavy damage.  It was pleaded that insurance claim was rightly repudiated because at the time of accident, the complainant was driving the vehicle but he was not having a valid driving licence as driving license had expired on 11.05.2013. 

4.         The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner opposite party as under:

1.         To pay a sum of Rs.2,49,500/- towards amount of repairing and compensation for mental agony to the respondent ( complainant)

2.         To pay interest @ 6% p.a. on above amount from the date of filing of the complaint.

3.         If the above amount is not paid within 30 days from the date of order, then interest @ 9% p.a. will be payable by the appellant ( O.P.)

4.         To pay a sum of Rs.1500/- towards cost of litigation to the respondent ( complainant).

5.         Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal.  The State Commission did not find merit in the appeal and concurred  with the finding of the District Forum.  This led to the filing of the revision petition. 

6.         Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because State Commission has failed to appreciate that driving license of the complainant had expired on 11.05.2013 and that on the date of accident, the complainant was driving the vehicle without having a valid driving license. 

7.         On consideration of record, we do not find merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioner.  The sole question which needs determination in this revision petition is whether at the time of accident, driver of the subject vehicle, namely, the complainant was having a valid driving license?

8.         In order to find answer to the above question, it would be useful to  have a look on the evidence given on oath by Ram Karan Ratra, Assistant Grade II who came from the office of RTO, Jagdalpur Adawal, Jagdalpur.  This witness in his cross examination has deposed as under:

“It is correct to say that license is issued by his office on submission of the application by the applicant and approval by the office.  It is also correct to say that the license was also issued in the name of Shri Nischal Das Motwani.  On showing the motor driving license exhibit P-1, the witness admitted that the transport license has been issued from his office.  It is clarified here that the original coy of the license exhibit P-1 has been returned to the complainant ‘s request and the photocopy of the same has been placed on record as exhibit P-1C.  On asking the witness whether the details mentioned on the driving license exhibit P-1 are true or not, this witness has stated that the remaining details indicated on the license are correct but the validity period has been erroneously written by the computer as 11.05.2015 which would been as 11.05.2013. 

It is correct to say that license exhibit P-1 has been issued from our office on which there are signatures of the RTO.  It is also correct to say that regarding the relative period, the error which has occurred on the driving license, that mistake is that of the transport office only.  It is correct to say that on the basis of the office records, Shri Nischal Das got his driving license renewed every three years within the prescribed period.  As regards the statement of the witness that a mistake has occurred in indicating the validity period on the driving license exhibit P-1, the witness was asked as to whether any letter was written or any information was given to the licence holder for getting the mistake corrected, the witness stated that nothing of that kind was done by their office he stated that in our office the correct validity period has been indicated and they could not verify as to what date of validity h as been mentioned on the license card at the time of its issue.  It is correct to say that any person in whose name the driving  license has been issued, he would consider the date of validity as indicated on the license card.  The witness has also stated that the license which is issued for a period of three years and if any license has been issued for a period of five years, then that particular person should get suspicious in such circumstances about the validity period and he should also enquire about the same.  It is correct to say that I cannot tell as to for what period the license used to be issued earlier for a particular category and he cannot also indicate as to what changes have taken place in what year.

9.         Reading of the above testimony of the official of RTO makes it clear that driving license relied upon by the complainant is a genuine license issued by RTO Jagdalpur.  It is also clear from the above evidence that while renewing the driving license, RTO made an endorsement showing that license is valid till 11.05.2015. If at all due to inadvertence or clerical error, wrong endorsement has been made on the driving license, the complainant cannot be made to suffer for that error on the part of RTO because he obviously after renewal of the license was under the impression that he has been authorised to drive the subject vehicle till 11.05.2015. 

10.       Looking from a different angle.  Had the wrong endorsement not been made, then obviously, the complainant before the expiry of driving license on 11.05.2013 would have applied for further renewal of the license.  Therefore, we do not find any error in the concurrent finding of the Fora below holding that repudiation of insurance claim by the petitioner is unjustified and amounts to deficiency in service.

11.       Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Fora below have committed an error in granting compensation to the tune of Rs.2,49,500/- taking the damage caused to the vehicle as a total damage, ignoring the fact that as per the survey report, cost of repair of the vehicle was assessed as Rs.2,18,438/-, therefore, the Fora below should have awarded compensation on the basis of cost of repair.  We do not find merit in the above contention.  IDV of the vehicle as per the insurance policy is Rs.2,50,000/-.  On perusal of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, we find that under the head “SUM INSURED-INSURED’S DECLARED VALUE (IDV), it is provided as under:

     IDV will be treated as the ‘Market Value’ through the policy period without any further depreciation for the purpose of Total Loss              (TL)/Constructive Total Loss (CTL) claims.

     The insured vehicle will be treated as a CTL if the aggregate cost of retrieval and / or repair of the vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, exceed 75% of the IDV of the vehicle.

12.       On reading of the above, it is clear that if the cost of repair of damage caused to the vehicle is more than 75% of the IDV, then the insured vehicle be treated as Constructive Total Loss and the claim should be settled on that basis.  As recorded above, cost for repair of the damage caused to the vehicle was assessed at Rs.2,18,438/- which is more than 75% of the IDV.  Therefore, it cannot be said that Fora below committed any error in allowing the claim on total loss basis. 

13.       In view of the discussion above, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.  Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.  Petitioner to comply with the order of the Fora below within 30 days.