The only dispute involved in this Revision Petition is whether the petitioner insurance company is liable to indemnify the respondent for the personal accidental benefit cover obtained by deceased driver Sh. Sher Singh or not.

          Respondent/complainant is the legal heir of deceased Sher Singh who was the registered owner of tractor No.HP-31B-9352.  Sher Singh obtained comprehensive insurance policy in the sum of Rs.2,65,000/- for the tractor from the petitioner for the period from 17.1.2006 to 16.1.2007.  He had also obtained the personal accident insurance cover for the sum of Rs.2 lacs by paying additional charges of Rs.100/-.  On 04.1.2007, the tractor met with an accident and, Sher Singh, who was driving the tractor, suffered fatal injuries and died.  First Information Report No.21/2007 under Sections 304-A and 279/337 IPC was registered at Police Station Sunder Nagar.  After the death of Sh. Sher Singh, respondent filed a claim for recovery of insurance amount of Rs.2 Lac with the petitioner.  Respondent supplied the necessary documents in support of the claim to the petitioner.  Petitioner asked the respondent to produce the driving license, which the respondent were unable to trace as Sher Singh must have carried the driving license with him at the time when the accident took place.  The driving license of Sher Singh was not found at the site of accident.  Petitioner repudiated the claim of the respondent on the ground that Sher Singh did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident.  Another ground taken was that the tractor was carrying passengers in excess of the limit provided under the policy.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the respondents had failed to prove that the driver of the vehicle was in possession of a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. 

          Aggrieved against the order of District Forum, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission by the impugned order has set aside the order passed by the District Forum and allowed the complaint.

          Notice was issued for 02.9.2009 for which date the respondent had been served.  She did not put in appearance.  The case was adjourned for today to enable respondent to put in appearance.  On the last date of hearing, office was directed to send a copy of this order to respondent with a note that in case she does not appear on the next date of hearing, she shall be proceeded ex parte and the Revision Petition shall be disposed of finally.    We had also directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- to the respondent towards litigation.   Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has paid the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent.  Respondent is not present despite service and having received the sum of Rs.5,000/-.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.  

          It is not disputed before us that the driving license of Sher Singh was not produced.  Sher Singh had died in the accident.  The driving license of Sher Singh is not traceable.  State Commission has allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner, at the time of extending the personal accident insurance cover, must have satisfied that Sher Singh had a license and only then the personal accident benefit was extended to him.  The State Commission has recorded a finding that the petitioner was duty-bound to verify that the driver was possessed of a valid and effective driving license before issuing the cover for personal accident benefit to him.  Petitioner has not examined the Development Officer, on the basis of whose report the personal accident cover was issued to Sher Singh.  The State Commission in para 4 of its order has recorded the following finding:

“Faced with this situation Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that claim was repudiated on the ground that 10 persons were traveling in the vehicle at the time of accident of the tractor in question.  Suffice it to say in this behalf, that this has no relevance even if this plea is accepted for the sake of argument, because under the personal accident benefit admittedly risk of the driver was covered under the policy.  Position of the appellants can be better imagined than explained as their sole bread winner had died in the accident, his driving license could not be traced, and wherefrom the deceased had obtained the same, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that his clients are not aware.  For the view that has been taken that agent/development officer was bound to satisfy himself and in fact was duty bound to have ascertained the fact that the driver was possessed of a valid and effectiv3e driving licence only then he covered the risk is another ground to negate the plea of learned counsel for the respondent.  In this view of the matter plea of persons traveling on the tractor at the time of accident is neither relevant nor has any bearing so far claim of the appellants is concerned.”

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that proof of having a valid driving license at the time of accident is a condition precedent and in the absence of the same, the insurance company is not bound to pay the insured amount.  We have no quarrel with this proposition of law but, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we draw an inference in favour of the respondent that the deceased Sher Singh had a valid driving license.  The personal accident insurance cover must have been extended to him only after verifying whether Sher Singh was having a valid driving license on the date of accident or not and if the petitioner had any doubt about it, then they should have produced the Development Officer, who had recommended the issuance of the cover.  If it was not there already, the insurance company is directed to instruct its agents/Development Officers to ascertain and verify that the person seeking cover for personal accident benefit is possessed of a valid driving licence and note the duration of its validity.  Insurance company should rather keep a photocopy of the driving licence to avoid any such controversy.  We make it clear that we agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that proof of having a valid driving licence is a condition precedent but in the present case, we are giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent, as we are of the opinion that the petitioner must have issued the cover for personal accident benefit after verifying that Sher Singh had a valid driving licence.  We are recording this finding in the peculiar facts of this case and the same may not be taken as a precedent for future reference.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  No merits.  Dismissed.

          The petitioner had deposited the sum of Rs.1,28,341/- with District Forum under the order of this Commission dated 20.05.2009.  District Forum is directed to release the aforesaid amount to the respondent along with accrued interest thereon, if any, in part satisfaction of the decree.

          Copy of this order be sent to the respondent.