Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs PRADEEP KUMAR MOHANTY

SHORT question for decision is whether the impugned order of the District Forum, Cuttack dated 5.9.1995 awarding a sum of Rs. 38,330/- under the Motor Vehicle Policy along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- is sustainable in the eye of law.

THERE is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Ambassador car bearing Regn. No. OAU-4455 met with an accident on 26.11.1990 as on which date the vehicle policy was in force. Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time did not possess a valid driving licence. This claim of the Insurance Company was sought to be proved from the entry in the driving licence of the driver which infact did not contain any endorsement that the person was permitted to drive the car which was a taxi as a paid driver. We have heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the complainant. Our attention is drawn by Mr. P.K. Mohapatra to the Ext. 3 of the lower Forum record which is a letter dated 10.8.1992 issued by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Cuttack addressed to the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. where it is specifically mentioned that the driving licence bearing No. 449/89-90 was in favour of Sri Indramani Singh which authorised him to drive light motor vehicle, heavy motor vehicle and public service vehicle as a paid employee. With this material on record we do not think, the Insurance Company should be justified to repudiate the claim. On going through the materials on record we find that the appeal has no merit, since there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

However, Mr. Mohanty is taking exception to the awarding of compensation. It is urged before us that the Insurance Company bonafidely repudiated the claim.

CONSIDERING the materials on record, we find that infact the Insurance Company should not be construed to have committed any deficiency in service, since, infact, they bonafidely believed that the absence of an endorsement in the licence did not allow the driver to drive the vehicle as a paid employee. Therefore, we set aside that part to the order awarding compensation but we have thought it appropriate to confirm the rest part of the order so far as the interest part is concerned. But we modify that the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% calculated only upto 5.9.1995 and no interest during pendency of the appeal. The appeal is allowed in part. Appeal partly allowed.