Haryana

StateCommission

A/773/2014

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh.Hari Om Bindal - Opp.Party(s)

03 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         Appeal No.773 of 2014 in

First appeal No.401 of 2011

Date of Institution: 21.03.2011

                                                               Date of Decision: 03.05.2016

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited,  SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted attorney.

….. Appellant

Versus

 

Sh.Hari Om Bindal, r/o House No.108-A, Ward No.2, Shiv Puri Mohalla, Palwal.

                                      …..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri P.S.Bedi, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri R.S.Hooda, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The vehicle bearing registration No.HR-38J-3750 was got insured from the opposite party (O.P.) and policy was valid from 21.10.2004 to 20.10.2005.  On 04.08.2005 the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged to the extent of 90%. FIR about this accident was also  lodged. Surveyor allowed him to get the vehicle repaired. He spent Rs.2,50,811/- on repairs. He submitted claim, but, was repudiated on the ground that driver of the vehicle Gopal Kishan was not having a valid driving licence, whereas he was having the licence issued by Secretary RTO cum DTO L.A. Bhiwani. It was renewed on 29.07.2004 and was valid upto 16.06.2007. O.Ps. repudiated his claim without any reasonable ground.

2.      O.p. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that the complainant did not spend Rs.2,50,811/- on the repairs. During verification, it was found that driver Gopal Kishan was not having a valid driving licence since beginning.  It was told by Licensing Authority, Solan that they did not issue licence No.G.9987/89 in favour of Gopal Kishan. RTO Bhiwani only renewed the licence. When the original licence was fake, renewal was not ground to presume the validity of licence.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“1.     to indemnify the complainant with Rs.1,52,975/- alongwith  interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its payment.

2.      to pay Rs.2,200/- towards cost of this complaint.”

4.      Feeling      aggrieved therefrom the appellant-opposite party has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that before employing Gopal Kishan as a driver, complainant verified about the licence and it was found that the same was renewed by Licencing Authority/DTO Bhiwani as mentioned in Ex.C-5.  He was only to verify about the latest licence was not in position to enquire when the original licence was valid or not.  There was no malafide on its parts.  To avoid it’s liability the insurance company is to prove that complainant was negligence or failed to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicle by duly licenced driver. The appellants-O.Ps. have failed to prove any lapse on their part. So they are liable to indemnify as per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in UIIC Vs.  Lehru 2003 (2) PLJR (SC) 169  and Pepsu Road Transport Corp. Vs. NIC in Civil appeal No.8276 decided on 26.08.2013. (case law cited by respondent counsel). 

7.      However there is no dispute as far as opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court, expressed in the aforesaid case laws, is concerned, but, complainant cannot derive any benefit from them because they pertain to the question of compensation to be paid to third party.  It is no where opined therein that in such like cases owner is entitled for compensation for his own loss.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined in M/s UIIC Vs. Devender Singh reported in 2007 (4) KLT 954 (case law cited by the appellant) that if driving licence was fake since very beginning, the insurer cannot ask to  pay compensation qua the loss of the vehicle.  The owner of vehicle has shown due diligence about enquiring genuineness of the driving licence, the insurance company is to indemnify him qua third party compensation, but, he cannot ask to pay compensation for his own loss.  Distinction between third party compensation and own loss is discussed in detail in this case. This proposition was also followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court  in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007 (4) Scale 36. (case law  cited by appellant’s counsel). When this point has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court nothing is left to be discussed.  In these circumstances complainant cannot ask for any compensation.  Hence impugned order dated 30.12.2011 is set aside.  Complaint is dismissed and appeal is allowed.

 

May 03rd, 2016           Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                               Member                                              Judicial Member                                                         Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.