Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 23.2.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1382 of 2009 seeking insurance claim on account of damages suffered by his vehicle during an accident was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that the the complainant got his 2002 model second hand Maruti Zen car bearing registration No.CH04-B-4076 insured with the OP for the period from 21.6.2008 to 20.6.2009 on payment of premium of Rs.4,622/- and Insured Declared Value of the car was stated to be Rs.1,30,000/-. The car met with an accident on the intervening night of 20/21.8.2009 between Nawanshar and Banga when he was coming from Amritsar and it suffered extensive damage. As a compromise was entered into between both the parties,so no FIR/DDR was recorded. Complainant informed OP about the accident and also called M/s C.M. Motors who advised him to tow the car to their garage at Ropar. However, no spot survey was got done by the OP at Nawanshar and surveyor was sent at M/s C.M. Motors. The representative of the OP visited the residence of the complainant after 10 days of accident and got the claim form signed. Ultimately OP repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.9.2009 on the ground that the licence held by the driver (complainant) at the time of accident was not valid for car/jeep. Hence, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking indemnification of the loss sustained by him due to accident of the car besides compensation and costs etc. 4. OP insurance company contested the complaint before the District by filing their written reply wherein it was inter-alia stated that upon receipt of intimation about the accident, Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma was appointed as surveyor and Loss Assessor who assessed the net liability of the answering OP on net of salvage basis to the tune of Rs.74,500/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was pleaded that upon verification of the licence it was found that the same was not valid for driving car and, therefore, vide letter dated 29.9.2009 the complainant was informed that his claim was not payable and was requested to explain the status of his driving licence within 15 days, but no reply was received. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating the claim and dismissed the complaint. However, it was observed by the learned District Forum that Since the case required thorough evidence examination of the driving license through Forensic Science Laboratory or handwriting expert and detailed examination of the officials of the Licensing Authority as well as of the complainant, he was at liberty to agitate the matter before the Civil Court. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant/ complainant was that the licence of the complainant was genuine and it was not proved on record that forgery had been committed by the complainant on the license. The licence was issued for Scooter/Motorcycle/car /jeep only by the Licensing Authority, Chandigarh. If the Licensing Authority had made some mistake while issuing the licence and did not keep the record intact, the complainant could not be made to suffer on that count. He further argued that even in the case where the insured was not having valid driving licence in that case the claim was settled on non-standard basis. To buttress his argument, he placed reliance upon an authority of Hon’ble National Commission in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gaj Pal Singh Rawat ; III(2009) CPJ 254(NC) and that of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohammad Ayoub Malik 1(2008)CPJ 94. However, these points of arguments have been repelled by the learned counsel for OP by stating that the complainant was not authorized to drive the car as he was not possessing a valid driving licence, so his claim was rightly repudiated. 7. The only question for determination in this case is with regard to the validity of the driving licence bearing No.290501 dated 11.8.1997 . The investigator appointed by the OPs obtained a report marked Annexure R-4/A from the Licencing Authority and attached the same with his own report Annexure R-4 to the effect that the driving licence was issued for Scooter/motor cycle only. However, in the report dated 11.02.2010 Annexure C-7 produced by the complainant the Registration and Licencing Authority, U.T., Chandigarh reported that the driving licence was original and genuine but was issued for scooter/motorcycle only. This report is given on the application moved by the complainant before the Licensing authority. There were six questions asked by vide application dated 3.2.2010. About validity, it was stated by the licencing authority that the licence was valid up to 10.8.2017 and in reply to question No.2 it was stated that the licence was validly issued by the licensing authority, Chandgarh. Further, in reply to question No.3 in the application “whether the licence shown/deposited is original’’ the answer given by the licensing authority is “Original”. It means the licence No.29051 dated 11.8.1997 was original. In reply to question No.4 it was stated that the signature of the licensing authority on the licence were genuine. However, it was not clarified when the licence was original and validly issued by the Licensing Authority and signatures were genuine and there was no allegation of interpolation made on the driving licence by the licensing authority, then how it was not valid for Car/jeep only. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the vehicle in question was insured for Rs.1,30,000/- and the insurance policy was effective from 21.6.2009 to 20.6.2010. The accident occurred on 19-8-2009 during the currency period of policy. The claim of the complainant was repudiated only on the ground of validity of driving licence. The licence produced by the complainant is for Scooter/motor cycle/car/jeep issued by the Licensing Authority, Chandigarh. It is not the case of insurance company that the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident and there was any nexus between the driving licence and the accident. As per report of surveyor the accident took place on account of dazzling light of the vehicle coming from the opposite side. In these circumstances, on the basis of authority of Hon’ble National Commission in United India Insurance Company Vs Gaj Pal Singh Rawat (Supra) claim of the complainant requires to be settled on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the total claim. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion , we accept the appeal partly and set aside the impugned order dated 23.2.2010 and allow the complaint. The surveyor in its report had assessed the liability of OP on Net of Salvage Basis for which he had obtained consent of the complainant for Rs.74500/-. Therefore, OP is directed to pay to the complainant 75% of Rs.74500/- i.e. 55875/- treating his claim on non-standard basis, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 29.9.2009 till actual realization. The amount shall be paid within one month from the date copy of order is received. 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 | , | | 
