National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs ANITA DEVI AGRAWAL

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 29.7.1999 in Complaint No. 212/91 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the appellant/insurer to pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 70,730/- with interest @ 12% p.a., besides cost of the complaint.

IT is not in dispute that the complainant/respondent is the owner of mini truck having registration No. MP 27-B/0894. IT is also not in dispute that the said truck was comprehensively insured with the appellant/insurer, covering the risk from 25.1.1996 to 24.1.1997. Undisputably, the vehicle met with an accident on 9.6.1997 near village Taand. Report of the accident was lodged with police. Appellant/insurer was also informed about the accident by the complainant/respondent on 10.6.1996. The claim of the complainant/respondent was repudiated by appellant/insurer on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by a driver, whose licence, on investigation was found to be fake and not issued by the original licensing authority. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim as above, the complainant/respondent filed the complaint in the District Forum. According to her, she incurred an expenditure of Rs. 70,730/- towards repairs of the vehicle. Hence, she prayed that the above amount be awarded with interest.

Appellant/insurer in its written version averred that as the original licence purportedly issued by licensing authority, Jhansi was reported to be fake by the Surveyor V.K. Mishra, hence, subsequent renewal thereof by the licensing authority, Ambikapur, would not validate the same. Thus the driver of the ill-fated vehicle, Satish Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The claim, therefore, according to the insurer, was rightly repudiated.

DISTRICT Forum allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 70,730/- with interest, etc. as mentioned above. Arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties were heard and record is perused.

LEARNED Counsel for appellant/insurer submitted that since the original driving licence of the driver Satish Kumar was found to be fake, hence the claim ought not to have been allowed. In the above context, it may be noticed that appellant/insurer has not placed any reliable material on record to show that the original driving licence was fake. Though the letter written by the investigator V.K. Mishra states that the licence of the driver was not issued by the licensing authority, Jhansi, but no official record of the said authority has been placed on record nor any official of that office has been examined by the appellant/insurer in support of the letter of the investigator V.K. Mishra. It may be mentioned that a certificate informing that the original licence purportedly issued by the licensing authority, Jhansi was not so issued, has been enclosed along with the letter of investigator V.K. Mishra. However, the said certificate or document only bears the rubber stamp of the licensing authority but it does not bear signature of any person issuing the said document. Such a document would certainly not be sufficient to vouch the contents thereof. No other document has been placed on record by the appellant to show that the original driving licence was fake. Thus the appellant/insurer has failed to substantiate its stand, that the driver Satish Kumar did not hold valid and effective driving licence. The next contention of the learned Counsel for appellant/insurer was that compensation as awarded should have been in accordance with Surveyor''s report. Learned Counsel for appellant/insurer also submitted an application under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. and produced the report of the Surveyor. According to the said report the loss on account of the accident has been assessed by the Surveyor at Rs. 39,876/-. After considering the circumstances of the case, we allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and allow the report of the Surveyor to be placed on record. In view of the above, the amount of Rs. 39,900/- as assessed by the Surveyor deserves to be awarded as compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Impugned order is modified as below: Appellant/insurer shall pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 39,900/- (Rupees thirty-nine thousand nine hundred) with interest at the rate and from the date as awarded by the District Forum. In view of the case, the cost of the appeal shall be borne by the parties. Appeal partly allowed.