National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Meera Rani Mittal on 6 October, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2776 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 07/05/2012 in Appeal No. 1313/2002 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. RO-I Level-V Tower,Tower-II,
Jeewan Bharti Connought Place ,
Thtough its General Manager New Delhi - -110001 Delhi ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MEERA RANI MITTAL W/o Late Shri Om Prakash Moittal
R/o H.No-A/8 New Nagla Padi
Opp Tulsi Cinema Agra - 282005 U.P ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate
Dated : 06 Oct 2015 ORDER
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Petitioner / Opposite Party has preferred this revision under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'Act') against impugned order dated 07.05.2012, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow (for short, 'State Commission') vide which Appeal No. 1313 of 2000 filed by petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of this case are, that Respondent / Complainant is owner of Maruti Esteem, bearing Registration No. UP-80-K-2250. The said vehicle was insured with petitioner for Rs.4,40,000/-, vide policy valid from 05.07.1997 to 04.07.1998, for which she paid premium of Rs. 15,770/-. On 31.12.1997, the said vehicle met with an accident at Delhi-Agra Highway with a Road-ways Bus, which was standing on the road. At the time of accident, the said vehicle was driven by Shri Anup Mittal. There was no warning signal in the stationed vehicle, due to which Shri Anup Mittal and Deepak Sharma, sustained serious injuries. After regaining consciousness, Anup Mittal informed the police. On 01.01.1998, the matter was investigated by S.I. Kotwali, Vrindaban and he found that Anup Mittal innocent and filed final report. The final report was accepted by the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
3. Thereafter, respondent filed insurance claim of above said vehicle, vide claim dated 12.02.1998. Petitioner has not paid the claim amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- but compelled her for accepting an amount of Rs. 2,99,000/-. Respondent gave her consent for the same, since she is an old and ailing lady. However, respondent is entitled to get the full claim amount of Rs. 4,40,000/- and is also entitled for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- for mental and physical harassment.
4. Petitioner in its written statement has admitted, that said vehicle was insured with it. On receipt of information on 10.07.98, petitioner appointed Shri Mohit Agarwal, as Surveyor who submitted his report dated 06.02.1998. The statement of respondent, that her car was fully smashed is wrong. Further, respondent has informed very late. The licence of driver Anup Mittal, No. DL No. 6361/P/91 was valid from 30.08.1991 to 13.03.2000. On inquiry, the licence of said driver was found fake and which was obtained on false and fabricated documents. The said Licence was cancelled by D.P. Singh, Licensing authority, Agra, vide order dated 01.12.1998. Therefore, driver Anup Mittal was not having valid driving licence. Due to this reason, the claim amount could not be paid.
5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum) vide order dated 05.04.2002, accepted the complaint and passed following directions;
"Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lac and Twenty Thousand) to the complainant as damages to her vehicle alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from dated 12.02.1999 rejecting the claim, within 30 days from the date of this order. The O.P. to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation within this period. For not complying with the orders within stipulated period the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 15 per cent on the due amount from opposite party from the date of the order till payment. The complainant shall return damaged salvage to the opposite party."
6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same.
7. Hence, present petition.
8. I have heard ld. Counsel for parties and gone through the record.
9. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, that driver of vehicle was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. The driver Arun Mittal had obtained driving licence on the basis of fake and fabricated documents, which was revoked by the licensing authority, vide its order dated 01.12.1998. Hence, there is no liability on the part of petitioner to pay insurance claim to the respondent and claim was rightly repudiated.
10. On the other hand it has been contended by Ld. Counsel for respondent, that if licensing authority had issued the driving licence on fake documents, then licensing authority itself is to be blamed for it. It was duty of the licensing authority to have examined the necessary documents, which were submitted alongwith the application. Moreover, the investigator had gone 28 times to verify the licence, which goes on to show that investigator was taking extra ordinary interest in this case. Even otherwise, there are concurrent finding of facts given by both fora below. Hence, this revision is legally not maintainable.
11. District Forum in its order observed:
"The intention of the opposite party to give the claim amount is not clearly proved because it has appointed not one surveyor but two, who surveyed incident separately and lingered the claim of the complainant for long time. However, as per survey report the vehicle was declared fully damaged. The opposite submitted that at the time of accident of the vehicle, the driver Anup Mittal was not having valid licence. He obtained the said licence on the false and fabricated documents from the office of RTO Agra. Therefore, the licence was not valid, therefore her claim has been rejected. But on the perusal of the documents available on file, it is clear that the said licence was issued by the RTO Agra which was valid upto 13.03.2000 and when Anup Mittal was driving the vehicle, this licence was issued by the RTO Agra. He was having licence valid upto 13.03.2000 and if the said driver had obtained the licence on false and frivolous documents, then it was the duty of the office of RTO to verify and satisfy with the documents and there after to issue licence, but it has been happened due to negligence on the part of the License Authority. There is no fault on the part of driver Anup Mittal but it can be said that the complainant who was the owner of the vehicle and how she had the knowledge of this fact that her driver is having fake licence. Then why the complainant is deprived of her claim but in the present case at the time of driving the vehicle, the driver was having valid licence, which was valid upto 13.03.2000 issued by the RTO Office Agra. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver was not having valid licence.
It seems that the opposite party by avoiding to give the claim to the complainant and they have delayed the same. They have not used their wisdom and without any reason have rejected the claim of the complainant which is wrong. Not only this the opposite party has given another OD claim of Rs. 86,500/- to the claimant on 15.04.1987 by cheque paid to Meera Rani, in the said claim, the vehicle was also driven by the said driver Anup Mittal and the said licence was considered valid by the opposite party. It is also pertinent to mention here that the opposite party has to dispose of the said claim within a period of two months after the receipt of Survey report, but without any reason they have lingered the same. Therefore, in the light of the above discussions, the claim of the complainant is liable to be accepted."
12. The State Commission while dismissing petitoner's appeal, observed:
"On the perusal of available documents on the file, it is clear that the driving licence of driver Anup Mittal was issued by the office of R.T.O. Agra on 30.08.1991, which was valid from 30.08.1991 to 13.03.2000. Thus, at the time of driving the said vehicle in question the driver Anup Mittal was having valid licence, which was valid upto 13.03.2000. If the said driver had submitted false documents and had obtained the wrong licence, then it was the duty of the R.T.O. Office Agra to check the documents in time and after full satisfaction to issue license to the driver Anup Mittal. But this was the negligence on the part of the Licensing Authority. There is no fault on the part of driver Anup Mittal. Shri Ram Chandra Singh Chandel, Private Investigator was appointed by the opposite party Insurance Company for Investigation of the driving Licence of the Driver but under section 64 (UM) of Insurance Act, the said investigator was not having any licence. To find out technical defects in the licence of driver, Shri Chandel had visited 28 times to the Transport office which proves his malafide intention that his only aim was to get cancelled the driving licence by hook or by crook. On which basis, according to the report of Sh. Chandel, the driving licence in question was cancelled on 01.12.1998 by Licensing Authority under Section 19 (1) (e) of Motor Vehicles Act. It is pointed out that there is clear provision under section 23 (1) of M.V. Act, that the cancellation of Driving Licence Under Section 19 of M.V. Act will be effective from the date of cancellation as provided in section 23 (1) as noted below:-
"Effect of disqualification order (1) A person in respect of whom any disqualification is made under Section 19 or Section 20 shall be debarred to the extend and for the period specific in such order from holding or obtaining a driving licence and the driving licence, if any, held by such person at the date of the order shall cease to be effective to such extent and during such period".
As per Report dated 06.02.1998 of Shri Mohit Mittal, Surveyor and survey report dated 26.06.1998 of Shri P. Pathak, the driving licence of driver Anup Mittal was checked and it is mentioned "Checked and Verified" which was valid upto 13.03.2000. Because the driver Anup Mittal was having valid licence at the time of accident, which was valid upto 13.03.2000, on this basis the complainant cannot be deprived of her Insurance claim."
13. Petitioner's defence is, that after respondent had submitted the claim form, an enquiry about validity of driving licence of Sh. Anup Mittal, driver was conducted from RTO, Agra. It was found, that Sh. Anup Mittal had got the driving licence issued on the basis of forged and fabricated papers. Accordingly, driving licence was cancelled by the licensing authority on 01.12.1998. Therefore on the date of accident, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Thus, no liability is cast upon the petitioner.
14. The claim of respondent was repudiated by petitioner vide its letter dated 12.02.1999, on the ground "for want of proper licence". In repudiation letter, it has nowhere been mentioned that driver had obtained the licence on the basis of forged and fake papers.
15. Be that as it may, as per order dated 01.12.1998, of the Licensing Authority, Motor Transport Department, Agra, the driving licence was issued on the basis of fake documents and manipulation done by the driver. There is nothing on record to show that before revoking the licence of the driver any show cause notice was issued to him or not. Moreover Licensing Authority in its order, has not mentioned at all as to what fake documents were submitted by the driver.
16. Admittedly, the driving licence of the driver was valid from 30.08.1991 to 13.03.2000. However, I fail to understand as to how after a period of seven years, the licensing authority all of a sudden has woken up and cancelled the driving licence of the driver.
17. It is well settled, that under Section 21 (b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Under Section 21 of the Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed;
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."
19. In view of the concurrent finding of fact given by both the fora below, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The State Commission has rightly excercised the jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, present revision petition stands dismissed.
20. No order as to cost.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER