JUDGMENT 7.9.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 23.1.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum-Hisar whereby two complaints bearing Nos.856 and 859 of 1996 filed by the Dhana Khurd Coop. Transport Society Ltd. were allowed with costs of Rs.1000/- in each complaint and insurance company was directed to pay the claim amounts in both complaints amounting to Rs.15650/- and Rs.16980/- respectively alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date (after three months of lodging the claims by the complainant with respondent) till actual payment. Complainant was also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- in each complaint on account of harassment and mental agony. 2. In fact OP insurance Company preferred the above two appeals for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.1.2002 whereby two complaints filed by the complainant were allowed. Since, in both these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, so, we are deciding these appeals by this common judgment. 3. In nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of these two appeals may be recapitulated thus ; That the complainant society was registered owner of Bus No.HR-39-880 which was insured with the National Insurance Company vide policy No.420304/6308831/94 valid from 20.6.94 to 19.6.95. The said bus met with an accident on 4.2.95 and a criminal case was registered at Police Station Sampla vide FIR No.21 dated 4.2.95. The claim was lodged with the respondent and accordingly surveyor was appointed who submitted his report regarding the damages. Complainant completed all the formalities but his claim was not settled on one pretext or the other. In the meanwhile the said bus again met with an accident on 16.5.95 and FIR No.122 dated 16.5.95 was registered in the Police Station, Sadar, Hisar. However, OP insurance company rejected both claims vide letter dated 5.8.96 on the ground that the driving licence of the driver Sant Lal Son of Sh.Phool Singh stood expred on 26.1.95 and it was later on renewed from 26.9.95 to 25.9.98 as such at the time of accident on both occasions he was not having effective valid driving licence. The complainant represented that the Driver was not disqualified by the Licensing Authority during the period 27.1.1995 to 25.9.95 and he should be presumed holding driving licence unless and until he is disqualified from driving the vehicle by the licensing authority. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed two separate complaints bearing No.856 and 859 of 1996 in respect of each occurrence before the District Forum, Hisar. 4. OP contested the both complaints by filing separate reply in each complaint. It was pleaded in both complaints that the complainant despite repeated letters did not produce the original driving licence of the driver and from the copy of the driving licence it was clear that the driving licence had already expired on 26.1.1995 whereas the first accident took place on 4.2.95 and second on 16.5.95 ,so the claims were rightly repudiated on 5.8.96. According to the surveyor’s report, the loss was assessed at Rs.16980/- for the accident dated 4.2.95 and Rs.15650/- for the accident dated 16.5.95. Pleading that the claims were rightly repudiated and as such there was no deficiency in service on its part and a prayer was made for dismissal of both complaints. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for parties, allowed both the complaints by common order dated 23.1.2002 as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the impugned order, Opposite party had filed two separate appeals before the Haryana State Consumer commission which have been transferred to this Commission under directions of the Hon’ble National Commission. 6. When the case was taken up for hearing arguments, none appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/OP and have perused the file carefully. The sole point of arguments is that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid driving licence on the dates of occurrence of the accidents i.e. 4.2.95 and 16.5.95. In that he submitted that the first accident occurred on 4.2.95 and his driving licence had expired on 26.1.95 which was ultimately renewed on 26.9.95,so, the same was not got renewed well in time. Therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum in both the complaints. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon an authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardari Vs Sushil Kumar 2008(2)CLT313. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and gone through the above cited ruling. In the said case the driver of the tractor did not know how to drive the tractor and he even never tried to learn driving of the tractor. Not only that, it was also admitted by the driver that he was not possessing any valid driving licence to drive the tractor. Moreover, the driver had never applied for issuance of the driving licence whereas in the instant case the driver of the vehicle was continuously holding a driving licence which was duly issued by the licensing authority. No doubt that he could not get his driving licence renewed but was never disqualified from holding his driving licence which was ultimately validly got renewed on 26.9.95. Thus, faced with this situation, appellant insurance company cannot be allowed to derive any benefit from the observations made by their lordships of the Apex court in the above said ruling as the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand. No other point has been urged or argued on behalf of the appellant. 8. In the result, we find no merit in both the appeals and as such both are dismissed. However, we feel that the learned District Forum has awarded interest as well as compensation separately which is not sustainable in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble National Commission in various pronouncements. Accordingly we hold that interest awarded by the District Forum @ 18% would also take care of the compensation for harassment and mental agony and as such compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum in each case is disallowed. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
