RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 2719 of 1999

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Jeevan Bhawan, IIIrd Floor, 43, Hazratganj,

Lucknow, through its Manager.                     ….Appellant.

Versus

Sri Shyam Sunder Tewari s/o Sri Thakur Das,

R/o Vill. & Post Barauri, Tehsil, Mauranipur,

Jhansi.                                                         ….Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Member.

Sri B.P. Dubey, counsel for the appellant.

Sri Alok Sinha, counsel for the respondent.

Date  15.2.2018   

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.1999, passed by the District Forum, Jhansi in complaint case no.455 of 1998.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant's bus was insured with the appellant/OP for an assured sum of Rs.2 lacs and the insurance was effective till 7.7.1997. On 20.5.1997, an accident took place whereby the bus of the complainant was damaged by a truck. The complainant pressed claim with the OP for compensation of Rs.58,200.00 The Surveyor appointed has assessed the loss at Rs.13,350.00 but that amount was no paid on the ground of driver of the bus not having the valid Driving Licence whereas according to the complainant the driver was having valid

(2)

licence. The complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint case before the Forum below wherein the OP filed their WS submitting therein that the claim of the complainant was not allowed as on the date of accident the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid licence. The D.L. was valid till 28.9.1995 whereas the accident occurred on 20.5.1997. The renewal thereafter was also got in an illegal manner and therefore, the appellant/OP did not commit any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim. The ld. Forum, thereafter, passed the impugned order as under:-

          "विपक्षी दि ओरियण्‍टल इन्‍श्‍योरेन्‍स कम्‍पनी लि0 को आदेश दिया जाता है कि वह आज दिनांक 16.9.99 से दो माह के अन्‍दर दुर्धटना में बस को हुई क्षति के लिए परिवादी को 13350/- रूपया बतौर क्षतिपूर्ति व क्षतिपूर्ति के भुगतान में विलम्‍ब किये जाने के कारण परिवाद प्रस्‍तुत किये जाने के दिनांक 21-8-98 से क्षतिपूर्ति भुगतान किये जाने के तिथि तक 18% वार्षिक दर से 13350/- रूपया पर ब्‍याज तथा मानसिक क्षतिपूर्ति के एवज में 1000/- रूपया परिवादी को अदा करेगा।"

          Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order that the appellant has filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that  the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving licence on the date of accident but ignoring this fact the ld. Forum has passed the impugned order against the facts and evidence therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant's vehicle was insured with the appellant/OP and that during the validity of the period of insurance that the vehicle of

(3)

the complainant met with an accident. The disputed point according to the appellant/OP is that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the valid driving licence and therefore, the appellant/OP did not commit any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant whereas according to the complainant the driver was having a valid driving licence and still the appellant repudiated the claim and hence, the appellant/OP committed deficiency in service.

          So now it is to be seen as to whether the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence or not.  If so, its effect.

In this regard, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the driver of the vehicle of the complainant was not having the valid driving licence as according to them the D.L. was effective till 28.9.1995 as was clear from the verification got done from the RTO, Jhansi and as the accident took place on 20.5.1997, therefore, the driver was not having the valid driving licence on the date of accident. However, the ld. counsel for the complainant has filed a copy of the driving licence wherein the driver of the vehicle Shri Dharam Das was having the driving licence which was valid from 29.9.1995 to 28.9.1998 and a copy of the information obtained through RTI has also been filed to show that the licence no.6544/JHS/1980 was valid from 1995 to 1998.

From the aforesaid document, it is clear that the driver of the vehicle Shri Dharam Das was having a valid driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 20.5.1997

(4)

therefore, in view of the evidence provided by the respondent/complainant, it is clear that the driver Shri Dharam Das was having valid driving licence on the date of accident and therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of driver not having the valid driving licence. Therefore, the ld. Forum has rightly concluded the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/OP in this regard and has awarded the amount of Rs.13,350.00 as assessed by the Surveyor but the  ld. Forum has also allowed interest @ 18% on the amount which appears to be on higher side and under the circumstances of the case, we consider it 9% instead of 18% as appropriate. The appeal accordinlgy deserves to be partly allowed.

ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order is amended to the extent that the rate of interest is reduced to 9% instead of 18%. The rest of the judgment shall remain as it is.   

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (Vijai Varma)                          (Raj Kamal Gupta)

    Presiding Member                                Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.2