UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs Balasaheb Atmaram Patil

MR . B.K. Taimni, Member -Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where, the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is the owner of a Tata Sumo vehicle, which was insured with the petitioner for the period from 30.8.2001 to 2.8.2002. This vehicle met with an accident on 28.2.2002 when the complainant''s son was driving the vehicle along with one other person. Both of them died in the same accident. The matter was reported to the petitioner and when the claim was preferred with the petitioner company by the respondent, it was repudiated on the ground that Sachin, i.e., the son of the respondent/complainant who was driving the vehicle, held a fake driving licence. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint by directing the petitioner to settle the claim on non -standard'' basis and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,57,500 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 9.10.2002 till the date of realisation. Cost of Rs. 1,000 was also imposed.

AGGRIEVED by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us. We heard the Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that both the lower Fora held and which remains unchallenged that the vehicle was being driven by a person who was hot authorised to drive the vehicle as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We are somewhat surprised that the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum by observing: "On perusal of the material placed on record, it is beyond doubt clear that the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence. The drive had learner''s licence, which was issued to him in November 1998. The said licence was valid for period of 300 days. The accident occurred in February 2002. The driving licence placed on record is forged one. The Insurance Company approached the Regional Transport Office, Mumbai and collected correct information. The licence is forged one and therefore the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that there was breach of terms of the Insurance Policy. The Forum below granted award on the basis of guidelines issued by the Insurance Company. The claim was allowed on non -standard basis. The org. complainant is therefore entitled to get 75% of the amount on non -standard basis. It is not pointed as to how this order is bad in law. Under the circumstances, we do not find any fault in the award passed by the District Consumer Forum. The appellant file filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of any merit."

WE have carefully gone through the guidelines issued by G.I.C. for claim settlement on non -standard'' basis. Para E(l) reads as follows: "E. Driving Licence: 1. Driver not duly authorised Repudiation"

KEEPING in view the admitted position that the person who was driving the vehicle at that time, did not hold any valid licence to drive the vehicle, hence was not duly authorised to drive the vehicle, in view of which, the repudiation of the claim by the petitioner cannot be said to any deficiency in service on their part. In our view, both the lower Fora erred in directing to settle the claim on non -standard basis'' completely overlooking the guidelines issued by the GIC.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by both the lower Fora, which are set aside. The complaint is dismissed and the Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.