NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs VINODBHAI P. PATEL

This Revision Petition has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 24.09.2013, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 604 of 2011. By the impugned order, while dismissing the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 21.05.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sabarkantha (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 142 of 2010, the State Commission has enhanced the compensation from Rs.94,150/- to Rs.1,25,536/-. By the said order, while partly accepting the Complaint, filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating his claim for indemnification of the loss suffered by him on account of accident of the vehicle in question, namely, a truck, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.94,150/-, computed on non-standard basis, along with interest @ 6% p.a., as well as Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and costs. The District Forum had also directed that if the said amount was not paid to the Complainant within 60 days of its order, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount.

In short, the controversy, which arose for consideration before the lower Fora, was whether the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the said claim on the ground that on the date of accident, i.e. 07.02.2009, the driver did not have a valid license, in as much as it had expired on 19.01.2009. Despite service of notice for listing of the case before the Circuit Bench, the Respondent/Complainant remains unrepresented.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, we are of the opinion that in so far as the decision of both the Fora below on the afore-noted question is concerned, it cannot be faulted with. Although, on the date of accident, the license of the driver had expired but, admittedly, on that date, the grace period of 30 days available under the Motor Vehicle Act, in getting the license renewed had not expired. It has also come on record that the license was actually got renewed within the said grace period. In that view of the matter, both the Forums below were fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim preferred by the Complainant could not be repudiated on the ground that on the date of the accident the driver did not have a valid license.

Having arrived at the said conclusion, the next question falling for consideration is whether the State Commission was justified in enhancing the compensation from Rs.94,150/-, as awarded by the District Forum on non-standard basis, to Rs.1,25,536/-, being 100% of the amount claimed. In our opinion, in the absence of any cross-objection or an Appeal by the Complainant, questioning the award of compensation on non-standard basis, passed by the District Forum, or even a prayer in that behalf, the State Commission has committed a material irregularity in enhancing the compensation.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent that the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay to the Complainant by way of compensation a sum of Rs.94,150/- for the loss suffered by him on account of accident of the subject truck, along with interest @ 9% p.a., as awarded by the District Forum, because admittedly the amount, as awarded by the District Forum, was not paid to the Complainant within the stipulated period of 60 days.

The District Forum is directed to release to the Complainant the amount(s) deposited by the Insurance Company in terms of the orders passed by the State Commission and by this Commission forthwith, along with accrued interest, if any. The balance amount due to the Complainant in terms of this order shall be remitted by the Insurance Company to the Complainant by means of a demand draft, drawn in his favour, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that while remitting the said amount, it will be open to the Insurance Company to account for the amount, which has been directed to be released to the Complainant.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.