Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/142

NATIONAL INSURRANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI OM PRAKASH - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ SETH

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Arguments: 22.04.2016

Date of Decision: 02.05.2016

 

 

First Appeal No.142/2009

(Arising out of the order dated 11.08.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.1003/2004 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (New Delhi)

 

 

In the matter of:

 

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

P-3/90, Connaught Circus,

New Delhi.

 

ALSO AT:

Delhi Regional Office-II,

2E/9, Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi.

                              …..........Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

Sh. Om Prakash,

8/7, Mehram Nagar,

Delhi

 

ALSO AT:

372/3, Kapashera Village,

New Delhi.

                                                ….….....Respondent

               

CORAM

Shri O. P. Gupta

 

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)  

 

 

1. OP has come in the present appeal against the order dated 11.08.2008 passed by the Consumer District Redressal Forum (New Delhi) in Consumer Complaint No.1003/2004.
2. Complainant got his car No.DL-1R-2529 insured from the OP from 03.11.2001 to 02.11.2002. On 28.10.2001 i.e. during the continuation of the policy period the vehicle met with an accident, which being driver by Sh. Mahavir Singh who had valid driving license upto 19.03.2018. Report was lodged with the police and OP was informed. The vehicle was got repaired and the complainant claimed cost of repair at Rs.64,860.12P. The same was rejected by the OP.
3. OP filed its written statement stating that it had appointed a surveyor who estimated the loss at Rs.22,247.75. The driver was not holding a valid driving license and was not authorized to drive the taxi.  After going through the affidavits filed by both the parties, District Forum found that the complainant has filed driving license of Sh. Mahavir Singh bearing No.1839DL11/3/2000 valid upto 19.03.2018 alongwith letter of confirmation by licensing authority, Rewari dated 18.03.2002 for -8 under Rule 17(1) M.V. Act vis-à-vis application for addition of new clause of vehicle to a driving license dated 02.11.2001. The same was sufficient proof of a valid license holder. OPs surveyor neither examined the complainant nor the driver nor the eye witnesses. OP illegally rejected the claim. When the complainant has filed genuine bills of Rs.64,860.12P, there was no reason why the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.22,247.75P. The OP was paymaster of the surveyor and surveyor had to give report as per the demand of OP. Hence, OP/appellant was directed to pay Rs.65,860.12P towards insurance amount, the amount spent on repairs, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
4. The only question raised by the appellant in the appeal is, as to what is the effect of non-holding of a commercial driving license by the driver. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to cite any provision of law or decision of any High Court to support his contention. It is not a case where the person driving the vehicle was not having any driving license at all. Rather he was having a license dated 02.11.2001, which was much prior to the date of accident. Not only this, he had applied for addition of new clause of vehicle to the driving license. The said fact was confirmed by the licensing authority, Rewari vide letter dated 18.03.2002. That application has not been rejected by the licensing authority. So, it can be presumed that the licensing authority did not find any fault with the application and has impliedly allowed the application.
5. Moreover, the factum of possessing a driving license for individual vehicle and not possessing the driving license for commercial vehicle is not germane to the terms of the policy. After all the driver was a person found to be fit for driving the vehicle, whether individual or taxi.
6. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
7. Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be also sent to the District Forum(New Delhi) for information.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)