Oral

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No. 221 of 2008

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having

its Registered Head Office, Orient House, A-25/27,

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi and one of its Divisional

Office, situated at 35-A/8, Rampur Bagh, Bareilly

and the Controlling Regional Office, situated at

Ghaziyabad and a Regional Office, situated at

IIIrd Floor, Jeevan Bhawan, 43, Hazratganj,

Lucknow through its Manager.                            …Appellant.

Versus

Shri Abdul Wahid s/o Late Sri Raish Ahmad,

R/o Mohalla Sadar Bazar, PS Cantt. District

Bareilly (Owner of Truck no.38 H 9286)         …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member.

None for appellant.

Sri Arun Tandan, Advocate for respondent.

Date  18.6.2024

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Sushil Kumar,  Member-   This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the Ld. District Forum-I, Bareilly in complaint case no.10 of 2006, Shri Abdul Wahid vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & anr., whereby the ld. District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,02,104.00 alongwith interest @ 7%.

As per the case of the complainant, he is registered owner of truck no.HR 38 H 9286 and obtained insurance policy. During the validity of the policy the truck was collided on 28/29.7.2005. Information was given to the insurance company as well as to the police station. The insurance company appointed a surveyor. The DL of the driver was submitted to the surveyor which was valid on the date of accident but the insurance claim was denied on the ground that the driver had no valid driving license.

The insurance company contended that the driver had no valid driving license on the date of accident. On this very ground the claim was rejected legally but the ld. District Forum concluded that the driver had valid driving license on the date of accident and according directed to pay Rs.1,02,104.00 as damages assessed by the surveyor of the company.

None present for the appellant. Ld. counsel for the respondent Sri Arun Tandan is present. We have heard him and perused the record.  

It is the contention of the insurance company that at the initial stage while filing the claim, it was stated that the driver was Shri Parvez and submitted DL no.7593/TPT/MBD/03. This matter was reported to the police officer also whereby Sri Parvez s/o Sri Fakeera has been shown as driver of the vehicle and the DL of Sri Parvez was found false, hence claim was not payable under the ambit of the policy conditions.

The complainant created afresh story that the driver was having the DL no.59302/ETAH/03 date of issuance 27.1.2003 having the validity w.e.f. 16.4.2005 to 15.4.2008. The ld. District Forum failed to notice this concocted and developed story of the complainant.

The determinable point is as to whether the driver of the insured vehicle had valid driving license on the date of accident ?

Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted his written argument which is available on record. As per written argument DL no.7593/TPT/MBD/03 was found to be false which was declared by the complainant himself and the respondent/complainant has brought a different theory that the driver was having DL no.59302/ETAH/03.

The ld. District Forum considered the issue DL no. 9302/ETAH/03 but never considered the validity of DL no. 7593/TPT/MBD/03 which was mentioned by the complainant himself in the claim form. It was mandatory on the part of the ld. District Forum to decide the point raised by the insurance company regarding the validity of DL no.7593/TPT/MBD/03. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum deserves to be set aside and it is essential to decide the issue afresh on the point of validity of DL no. 7593/TPT/MBD/03 which was mentioned by the complainant himself.

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed.  The judgment and order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the Ld. District Forum-I, Bareilly in complaint case no.10 of 2006, is hereby set aside and the file is remanded back to the ld. District Consumer Forum-I, Bareilly to decide the complaint case afresh and further requested to give a clear finding about the DL no. 7593/TPT/MBD/03 and the consequences of providing second DL no. 9302/ETAH/03 at the time of submission of the insurance claim.

          Parties are directed to appear before the ld. District Consumer Forum-I, Bareilly on 20.8.2024.

          If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the ld. District Consumer Forum concerned for satisfying the decree, as per rules alongwith accrued interest upto date.

The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself. 

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.      

       (Sudha Upadhyay)                        (Sushil Kumar)                              

                Member                              Presiding Member

Jafri, PA I

Court 2