National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sushil Jain on 12 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 567 OF 2007 (Against the Order dated 20/11/2006 in Appeal No. 11404/2006 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh) 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. DRO-I Level-Iv, Tower-II,Jeevan Bharti Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SUSHIL JAIN C/o Tarsam Chand Rajesh Kumar, Shop No.23, Near Grain Market Khanna, Tehsil and District Ludhiana Punjab ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Shri R.C. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Satwinder Kaur, Advocate Dated : 12 Jun 2015 ORDER The factual matrix of this case in brief are that the complainant who is respondent herein had got his car insured with the petitioner Insurance Co. which was OP before the District Forum. During the period of cover, the car met with an accident on 13.6.2003 and as per the allegation, it was a case of total loss. The car at the time of the accident was driven by one Rajesh Jindal. The claim filed by the respondent with the petitioner Co. was repudiated on the ground that on the day the accident took place, the driver who was driving the car did not hold a valid and effective driving licence. It was stated that the driving licence which was held by the driver had expired on 30.3.2003 and was got renewed after the accident on 30.6.2003. According to the Insurance Co., the driver of the vehicle did not hold any driving licence on the date of accident, much less a valid licence and as such it was well within its rights to repudiate the claim. Repudiation of the claim of the respondent led to the filing of a consumer complaint by him before the District Forum which vide its order dated 21.9.2006 allowed the complaint in terms of the following order:-
"In view of our above discussion, the complaint is accepted and the respondent insurance company is directed to give claim to the complainant on producing documents, if any, in accordance with rules and regulations of the policy along with interest 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the entire payment. Compliance of order be made within one month of the receipt of copy of order. Copy of order be supplied to the parties. File be complete and consigned to the record room."
2. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the petitioner Insurance Co. filed an appeal bearing No.1404 of 2006 before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh which by its impugned order dated 20.11.2006 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Forum. The present revision petition has now been filed by the petitioner Co. challenging the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
3. We have heard Shri R.C. Mishra, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Satwinder Kaur, Advocate appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, this case is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Chandra & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [(2007) 10 SCC 650]. In view of this, both the fora below have gravely erred in accepting the claim of the respondent which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court and as such the impugned orders of the fora below cannot be sustained in the eye of law. During the course of arguments, he also pointed out that since the accident in this case had occurred on 13.6.2003 and the driving licence of the driver, Rajesh Jindal, had already expired on 30.3.2003 and was got renewed much after 30 days grace period, it resulted in serious violation of the provisions of section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as such the respondent is not entitled to his claim and Insurance Co. was well within its rights to repudiate the claim of the respondent. Elaborating his contention, learned counsel pointed out that the District Forum as well as the State Commission relied, inter alia, on the judgement of National Insurance Co. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 297] to the effect that the driver was not debarred or disqualified from obtaining the driving licence though the driving licence had expired prior to the date of accident. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court had discussed the Swaran Singh's case in detail in the case of Ishwar Chandra (supra) and while discussing the ratio of Swaran Singh's case did not apply the same and rejected the claim of the insured since the driver did not hold a valid licence as he was driving the vehicle with expired licence. In view of this, learned counsel submitted that orders of the fora below which are contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court are liable to be set aside and the revision petition be allowed with cost.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that both the fora below have accepted the claim of the respondent and considering their concurrent findings, there is no case for allowing the present revision petition. She has placed reliance on the judgements in the cases of Ramesh Chand alias Ramesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &Ors. [Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement in 1997 ACJ 1331]; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammed Sab Ali Sab Kaladagi & Ors. [Karnataka High Court in 2000 ACJ 1223] and K.g. Srinivasamurthy Vs. Habib Khathun & Ors. [Karnataka High Court in 2002 (2) TAC 767]. She, therefore, submitted that concurrent orders of the fora below be maintained and the revision petition dismissed.
5. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the driving licence of Rajesh Jindal who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident had expired as on the date of accident. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant fairly admitted during the course of hearing that the respondent did not apply for its renewal within the grace period of 30 days. In view of this, the driver of the vehicle admittedly did not hold any valid and effective driving licence while driving the vehicle. We have perused the original driving licence produced by the respondent but we did not find any mention of the date of renewal. In view of this admitted position, this case is squarely covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in Ishwar Chand's case (supra). The cases relied on by the counsel for the respondent cannot provide any relief to the respondent in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in which the ratio in the case of Swaran Singh has also been considered but not followed. Both the fora below obviously committed grave error in ignoring the specific provisions of section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act while admitting the case of the respondent and returning their findings in his favour. In respect of the claim of the insured himself, the issue as to whether the driver of the vehicle was disqualified from holding a driving licence or driving is no longer relevant keeping in view the ruling given by the Apex Court in Ishwar Chandra's case. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and must be set aside. Accordingly, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned orders of the State Commission and the District Forum.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER