National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sanjeev Kumar on 23 August, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 67 OF 2011 (From the order dated 25.08.2010 in Appeal No.136 of 2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh) National Insurance Company Ltd. Delhi Regional Office 1, Jiwan Bharti Building Tower II Level-IV,124, Connaught Circus New Delhi 110 001 Also at National Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office No. 1, 2nd Floor, SCO No.133-134-135 Sector 17-C, Chandigarh Petitioner/Opposite Parties (OP) Versus Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Tek Chand R/at House No. 1122 Sector 49-B Pushpac Complex Chandigarh Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Hetu Arora Sethi, Advocate For the Respondent : In person PRONOUNCED ON 23rd August, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 136/10 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. National Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondents car No. CH04-B-4076 was insured by OP/respondent for one year commencing from 21.6.2008 to 20.6.2009. Car met with an accident on the intervening night of 20/21.8.2009 and vehicle was damaged in the accident. As compromise was entered into between the complainant and other offending vehicle, no FIR was lodged, but intimation was given to the OP. OP appointed surveyor, but claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that licence of the complainant was not valid for car/jeep who was driving vehicle at the time of accident. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint and submitted that on verification, the licence was not found valid for driving car; hence, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint and gave opportunity to the complainant to agitate the matter before civil court. On appeal filed by the complainant, learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed OP to make payment of Rs.55,875/- being 75% of the total claim on sub-standard basis against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as complainant was not possessing driving licence for driving car at the time of accident, learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint; hence, revision petition be accepted and impugned order be set aside.
On the other hand, respondent submitted that his driving licence is valid for driving Scooter/motor cycle/car/jeep and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. The short question to be decided in this revision petition is whether complainant was possessing valid driving licence for driving car at the time of accident or not. Petitioner has filed copy of duplicate licence issued by Licensing Authority, Chandigarh in favour of complainant on 11.8.1997 and his Licence No. is 290501. Complainant himself made certain queries from Licensing Authority, Chandigarh vide application dated 3.2.2010 regarding verification of his aforesaid licence issued on 11.8.1997 and Licensing Authority informed to the complainant on 11.2.2010 that his licence was only for scooter/motor cycle. It appears that OP also obtained verification certificate of complainants driving licence from Licensing Authority and Licensing Authority vide letter dated 17.9.2009 apprised that licence no. 290501 dated 11.8.1997 issued in the name of Sanjeev Kumar has been issued only for scooter/Motor cycle. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that disputed driving licence was granted for driving car/jeep also. Respondent during the course of arguments submitted that he has not forged driving licence, but verification certificate issued by the Licensing Authority and reply to queries of complainant made by Licensing Authority based on their record can also not be disputed and in such circumstances, it can be held that complainant was not having licence for driving car/jeep on the date of accident.
6. When complainant was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, OP/petitioner has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim in the light of judgment of this Commission in III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC) United India Insurance Company Vs. Arjun Kumar, III (2010) CPJ 256 (NC) National Insurance Company Vs. Sansar Chand and as held by Honble Apex Court in II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors.
7. Learned State Commission has allowed claim on non-standard basis which is not in accordance with law in the light of aforesaid judgements. If complainant was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation in respect of damages to the vehicle even on sub-standard basis.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 25.8.2010 passed by leaned State Commission in Appeal No. 136 of 2010 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. Natinal Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 23.2.2010 is affirmed.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/ ( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k