State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager,Oriental Insurance ... vs Sashirekha Khandelwal on 30 October, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. APPEAL NO.111 OF 2004 From an order dated 27.12.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mayurbhanj in C.D. Case No.137 of 2003 The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Baripada, At/P.O/P.S- Baripada, Dist- Mayurbhanj, now represented through Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., office at Alok Bharati Towers, IVth Floor, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Appellant. -Versus- Sashirekha Khandelwal, W/o. Late Mahabir Prasad Khandelwal, At/P.O/P.S- Betnoti, Dist- Mayurbhanj. Respondent. For the Appellant : M/s. G.P. Dutta & Assoc. For the Respondents : M/s. M.K. Das & Assoc. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE R.K. PATRA, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
DATE: - 30th OCTOBER, 2006.
The Mayurbhanj District Forum by order dated 27.12.2003 has directed the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of rupees 1,35,038.80 with interest @10% per annum together with cost of rupees 1,000/-. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company.
2. The respondent filed the complaint claiming payment of rupees 1,35,038.80 towards the cost of repairs and spare parts of the insured vehicle. Her case was that she was the registered owner of a passenger bus bearing registration no.BR-IP-8972 which was comprehensively insured with the appellant.
During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the bus met with an accident on 23.09.2001 while plying from Konark to Ranchi. It was covering a distance of 600 kilometres in night journey. She therefore employed two drivers for the purpose. At the time of accident, Padyeswar Mohanta was driving the bus who had valid and effective driving licence. She spent rupees 1,35,038.80 towards repairs and replacement of spare parts of the bus. She brought this fact to the notice of the appellant, but as no decision was communicated, she filed the complaint.
The appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Mahindra Singh, who had no valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, for violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy no liability can be fastened on the insurer.
3. The accident was said to have taken place on 23.09.2001 at about 2.30 a.m.. The matter was reported at Jharpokharia police station. The appellant produced a copy of the station diary of Jharpokharia police station to show that the bus was driven by Mahindra Singh. The respondent, on the other hand, produced a copy of the station diary entry indicating that Padyeswar Mohanta was driving the vehicle. In view of such conflicting documents, the District Forum called for the original station diary from Jharpokharia police station. On being produced the original, the District Forum found that the station diary entry did not contain the name of the driver. Therefore, both the copies of station diary entries filed by the appellant and respondent were rightly ignored by the District Forum.
The respondent submitted the claim in the prescribed form before the appellant on 25.09.2001. Against the column, driver at the time of accident, name of Mahindra Singh was mentioned. In the accompanying affidavit to the claim petition, the respondent averred that at the time of accident, Mahindra Singh was driving the bus. She had given details of his driving licence. Before the District Forum, she however changed her version and stated that as the bus had to cover a distance of 600 kilometres, there were two drivers on the fateful night, they being Mahindra Singh and Padyeswar Mohanta and at the time of accident, Padyeswar Mohanta was driving the vehicle. This is a clear case of afterthought. Knowing well that Mahindra Singh had no valid and effective driving licence, she changed her version. As indicated above, the accident took place on 23.09.2001 and the claim was lodged with the appellant on 25.09.2001. It is unthinkable that without verifying the real fact as to who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, she would mention the name of Mahindra Singh as the driver. No importance can be attached to her subsequent affidavit changing the version. In absence of a clear and categorical proof that the vehicle was being driven by a driver, who had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the District Forum has clearly erred in allowing the complaint.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent. This appeal is allowed. No costs.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.
SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER, I agree.