National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Smt. Seema Garg vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., on 15 January, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4611 OF 2013 (From the order dated 11.02.2013 in Appeal No. FA/12/403 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur) WITH IA/7598/2013 (CONDONATION OF DELAY) Smt. Seema Garg W/o Sh. Sanjiv Garg, R/o Nalwa Sponge Iron Colony, Taraimal, Post, Tehsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) Petitioner Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Itwari Bazar, Raigarh (C.G.) Through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No. 1, City and District Raipur (C.G.) Respondent BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K. S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner : Mr. S. K. Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 15th JANUARY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 11.02.2013, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short the State Commission) in appeal no. FA/12/403, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Seema Garg, vide which, while allowing appeal filed by the opposite party/respondent, Insurance Company, the order dated 08.06.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh in case no. 95/2010, allowing the complaint in question, was set aside and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a trailer vehicle bearing registration no. CG-13A/9924 was insured with the Opposite Party/Insurance Company, vide policy no. 153300/31/2009/1130 from 05.05.2009 to 04.05.2010. The said vehicle was damaged in a road accident on 29.06.2009. A surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company to assess the loss. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim, saying that the vehicle was not being driven by a person having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and hence, there was a material violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver, Mukesh Kumar Sahu was holder of driving licence to drive motorcycle, LMV etc., but the permission to drive transport vehicle and heavy goods vehicle was given w.e.f. 09.11.2009, whereas the accident took place on 29.06.2009. The present petitioner filed the consumer complaint in question, which was allowed by the District Forum, vide their order dated 08.06.2012. The District Forum ordered that the petitioner was entitled to receive a sum of `1,77,660/- towards vehicle repair bill and after deducting an amount of `32,811/-, already received from the opposite party as compensation, opposite party was required to pay `1,44,849/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum and compensation of `4,000/- towards mental agony and `1,000/- towards cost of litigation. An appeal was filed by the Opposite Party/Insurance Company before the State Commission against this order, and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 11.02.2013. The State Commission held that the driver of the complainant was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of incident and hence, there was a material violation of the conditions of the policy. Learned State Commission also observed that the amount of `32,811/- had in fact, been given by the complainant to the Insurance Company for getting the vehicle insured for ` 7,50,000/-. The State Commission dismissed the consumer complaint in question. The present revision petition has been filed against this order. 3. At the time of admission hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the petitioner informed the respondent/Insurance company immediately after the said incident and submitted all relevant documents to the surveyor. The surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of `1,77,660/-. There was no wilful breach or violation of law on the part of the insured. It was the duty of the insurer to prove that there was wilful violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver was already having licence to drive motorcycle, LMV etc., but the endorsement to drive transport vehicle was given w.e.f. 09.11.2009. Learned counsel stated that since the policy had been obtained after depositing requisite amount of premium, the claim should not have been repudiated. 4. We have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission hearing. There is a delay of 200 days in filing the present revision petition. An application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner vide I.A. No. 7598/2013. It has been stated therein that copy of the impugned order dated 11.02.2013 was received by the petitioner on 07.3.2013, whereupon the petitioner approached the local counsel for advice. She was advised to file a petition before the National Commission and for that purpose, she contacted the present counsel at Delhi. The present counsel advised her to bring complete set of paper book filed before the District Forum and the State Commission. However, her local counsel told her that copy of the paper book was not traceable. As such, a time of about three months were lost in obtaining copy of the paper book. Further, some time was spent in getting the document translated into English. The petition was presented before this Commission on 19.09.2013, but it was returned with certain objections. The petitioner has stated that delay of 200 days occurred because of the factors described above. Although, these are not cogent and convincing reasons for condoning the delay, yet in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned because the petitioner should not suffer for the fault of her counsel. 5. The petitioner/complainant has admitted in the grounds of revision petition that, although the driver of the vehicle in question was having licence to drive motorcycle, LMV etc., but the endorsement to drive transport vehicle was made w.e.f. 09.11.2009 only, whereas the accident took place prior to that i.e. 29.06.2009. It is clear, therefore, that the driver was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. In a large number of cases decided by the Honble Apex Court and this Commission, it has been observed that when a driver does not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of incident, the claim could not be honoured. The District Forum has also referred in their order, the case, New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal as reported in (2008)ISCC696, wherein it was held that if there was no entry in the driving licence regarding driving of a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation for the loss. Even after quoting this judgment, the District Forum decided to allow the complaint, the reasons for which have not been elaborated. However, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is based on a correct appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record as well as the legal proposition governing the issue. We, therefore, do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the State Commission. The same is, therefore, ordered to be upheld and the present revision petition is ordered to be dismissed at admission stage, with no order as to costs. ..
(K.S. CHAUDHARI J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) MEMBER PSM