National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Vinod Kumar on 16 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3789 OF 2009 (From the order dated 02.02.2009 in Appeal No. FA-634/2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office No.-25, 30/6, Nangia Park, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office P.B. No. 7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi- 110002 Petitioners Versus Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Sunder Lal Bansal R/o- B-138, Prashant Vihar, Block-B, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi- 110085 Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B. C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Mittal, Advocate DATED: 16.01.2015 JUDGMENT
JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent being owner of a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CJ 8798, got the said vehicle insured with the petitioner Company for a period from 29.03.2004 to 28.03.2005. The vehicle met with an accident at Karnal bypass on 24.06.2004 and sustained several damages. The vehicle was repaired by the workshop and returned to the complainant, who paid a sum of Rs. 1,35,184/- to the workshop, for carrying out the repairs. The complainant/respondent then submitted the claim with the petitioner Company, which was rejected on the ground that the licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence since it had not been issued by licencing authority, Karnal, by which it purported to be issued.
2. Being aggrieved from the denial of the claim, the respondent/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the same ground on which the claim was earlier rejected by it.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 11.05.2006, directed the petitioner Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,184/- to the complainant alongwith compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- and costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 2,000/-.
4. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company approached the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been partly allowed by reducing the principal amount from Rs. 1,35,184/- to Rs. 1,21,416/- while maintaining rest of the order, vide impugned order dated 02.02.2009, the Insurance Company is before us by way of this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent relies upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 (3) SCC 297, in support of his contention that since the complainant was not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving licence shown to him by the driver, the claim could not have been denied. The decision in Swaran Singh (supra) was clarified by the Honble Supreme Court in a later decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700, holding that the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) would apply only in a case where claim is raised by a third party and not in a case where the claim is raised by the insured himself. In a subsequent decision, passed by the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saheb Singh (2010) 14 SCC 776, it was found that the licence of the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence. The State Commission however allowed the complaint relying upon the decision in Swaran Singh (supra). Allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the Honble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment in Swaran Singh case has been clarified in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut and in view of the latter decision, insured cannot claim compensation for damage to his vehicle or goods where the licence of the driver is fake. He pointed out that the respondent insured had claimed compensation for the damage caused to his own vehicle and not for third party and as such the ratio of Laxmi Narain Dhut case is squarely applicable to the present case.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and are satisfied that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment in Laxmi Narain Dhut case and on that ground the orders passed by the State Commission and National Commission are liable to be set aside.
6. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj, (2008) 2 SC 338, a mini bus owned by the respondent before the Honble Supreme Court, met with an accident during the subsistence of an insurance policy, issued by the appellant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The claim in respect of the damages sustained by the vehicle was rejected on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and operative driving licence. The complainant took the plea that the licence renewed by the concerned RTO was valid and legal and therefore repudiation of the claim was not justified.
The plea taken by the complainant, however, was rejected by the State Commission. Being aggrieved, he approached this Commission by way of an appeal, which was allowed. The order passed by this Commission was challenged by the Insurance Company before the Honble Supreme Court. Setting aside the order passed by this Commission, the Honble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-
9. Swaran Singh case on which learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance undisputedly related to a case under Section 149 of the Act. This Court elaborately dealt with the scope and ambit of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and after tracing the history of compulsory insurance and the rights of the third parties, held that the cases concerned were mainly concerned with third party rights under the policy. It was held in that context that any condition in the policy whereby the right of the third party is taken away would be void, as noted in para 23 of the judgment.
7. In the case before us, since the claim with the Insurance Company was lodged by the insured and not by a third pary, the case is clearly governed by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra), Prithvi Raj (supra) and Saheb Singh (supra). The decision in Swaran Singh(supra) is clearly inapplicable. The learned counsel for the complainant lastly submits that the vehicle had stopped at red light when it was hit and sustained damages. That too, in our opinion would be immaterial since even while stopping the vehicle at traffic signal, in a course of journey, a person is driving the vehicle and in case it is found that he did not possess the genuine and valid licence, the Insurance Company would not be liable wherever the claim is lodged by the insured.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant is not at all at fault. That, in our view is wholly immaterial, since the parties are governed by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and in the event, the vehicle is driven by a person who does not possess a valid and subsisting licence, the insured is not entitled to any reimbursement irrespective of whether he is at fault or not.
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
V.K.JAIN, J PRESIDING MEMBER .
DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER PSM/17