MAHABIR PARSHAD GOYAL vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainant is the owner of truck bearing No. AS-01 /4697. He got it insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., opposite party No.1 (OP-1) on 31.1.92 for an amount of Rs. 3 lacs. The Instalment Supply Ltd., opposite party No. 2 (OP-2), is the financier of the truck. It met with an accident on 16.4.92, in which it was badly damaged. The complainant filed a claim with OP-1 which was not accepted by them. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint with the Commission for recovery of the price of the vehicle and damages.

THE complaint has been contested by the OP. It has been inter-alia pleaded by them that the driver of the truck did not hold a valid licence and consequently, they were not liable to pay the insured amount and damages. The main question that arises for determination is, whether Satyawan driver of the truck held a valid licence on the date of accident. The agent of the complainant has argued that the original licence of the driver was issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttak (Orissa) in April ''86. Thereafter, it was got renewed by the driver from Bhiwani on 26.6.89. He submits that the complainant made an enquiry from the office of the Licensing Authority at Bhiwani and verified that the driver had a valid licence and thereafter employed him. On the other hand Mr. Paul, the learned Counsel for the OP-1 has submitted that OP-1 verified from the Licensing Authority at Cuttak, whether driving licence No. S-19679/86 was issued to Satyawan and they were informed vide letter dated 14.6.94 that no driving licence bearing No. S-19679/86 Cuttak, had been issued to anybody from that office.

We have duly considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The question as to whether Satyawan had a valid driving licence, is a question of fact which is not possible for the Commission to determine in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. For determination of such a question, full-dress trial in a Civil Court, is required, where the parties get-ample opportunity to lead evidence, prove documents and examine and cross-examine witnesses. Therefore, if the OP-1 has refused to pay the insurance amount to the complainant on the basis of the letter from the Licensing Authority, Cuttak, it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on their part.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint subject to the observations that the complainant may seek his remedy in a Civil Court, if so advised. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.