Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the judgement and award passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum Pune in consumer complaint No.114/2009 decided on 15/02/2010. While allowing the complaint partly, Forum below directed the Insurance Company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,46,210/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 13/12/2007 till actual realization and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceeding. As such org. O.P./Insurance Company has filed this appeal taking strong exception to the award passed by the Forum below. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :- Complainant/respondent herein is the owner of one Crane and he had taken policy to insure the said crane and had paid premium accordingly. When the policy was in force, there was an accident to the said crane and he was required to spend Rs.1,85,369/- over the repairs of the said crane. He lodged insurance claim with the O.P./Insurance Company. O.P. however repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the crane was not having effective driving licence. Aggrieved by the said repudiation, respondent approached the Forum below by filing consumer complaint. O.P. filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant. According to the O.P. complainant should have approached the Civil Court instead of filing consumer complaint, which is not permissible in law. He also pleaded that crane was used for commercial purpose and therefore, Forum below has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. O.P. also pleaded that after receipt of claim, one of the Panel Advocate Mr.Hasurkar gave remark that crane driver was not having effective valid driving licence. Driver of the crane was having Heavy Goods vehicle driving licence, but that cannot be valid for driving crane. On that basis, Insurance Company has repudiated the claim. On the basis of documents and affidavits placed on record, Forum below was of the view that Heavy Goods driving licence, which driver of the vehicle was possessing at the time of accident was the licence which can be validly used to drive vehicle like crane. Forum below did not find favaour with the opinion given by Advocate Mr.Hasurkar in favour of the Insurance Company. Forum below held that Mr.Santlal Bhaiya was driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and he was having licence No.79/7673 which is valid from 05/07/1979 to 29/07/2003 and then it was further renewed for period 30/08/2003 to 29/08/2009. He was also given a Computer Licence No.M-12/2003/0360841. Forum below noted in its order that prior to 05/07/1979 there was no separate class for crane but from 01/07/1989 there is a separate class for crane. It was contention of the Insurance Company that since separate class was now available, licence should have been issued for that particular class of vehicle. But, this contention was turned down by the Forum below holding that there is a letter issued by Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Pune dated 28/02/2008, wherein RTO clearly opined that person who is having Heavy Goods driving licence can drive crane legally. On the basis of this remark of Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Pune, Forum below ultimately held that expenses incurred for the repairs of the crane should be reimbursed by the Insurance Company and accordingly, it allowed the complaint partly and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,46,210/- and also directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. Aggrieved by said award, Insurance Company has filed this appeal. We heard Mr.M.M. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company and Ms.Priya Oswal, Advocate for the respondent/org. complainant. We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is just, proper and sustainable in law. As against opinion of Advocate Mr.Hasurkar produced by the appellant/Insurance Company, there is on record a letter issued by Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Pune, which was issued under Right to Information Act, in that letter, the Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Pune has categorically stated that a person who is having Heavy Goods vehicle driving licence can drive a crane. This is a categorical statement made by the Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Pune in the query made by the respondent under Right to Information Act, 2005. In this view of the matter, we are finding that the driver was having Heavy Goods vehicle driving licence right from 05/07/1979 and at the time of accident, he was holding said licence and on the basis of said licence, as per remarks of Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Pune, he was legally entitled to drive crane even on the date of accident of crane. Therefore, contention of the appellant’s Counsel that driver of the crane was not having effective valid driving licence is devoid of any substance. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Forum below is just, proper and there appears no merit in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. In the circumstances, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. |
