The central legal point established is that the lack of a valid driving licence for carrying hazardous goods, as mandated by the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, 1989, justified the repudiation of the insurance claim.

Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal filed against order dated 3.3.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 1031 of 1991, Sukhbir Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

2. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the finding that there was no deficiency/negligence in performing service by respondent No. 1 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited [for short hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company] towards the appellant/complainant. An oil tanker bearing registration No. HR-37-4947 was insured with the respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company vide Cover Note No. 2065920622 dated 22.4.1998 for a sum of Rs. 4.5 lacs. The goods to be carried were separately insured vide Cover Note No. 120675 dated 1.11.1997 to the extent of Rs. 1.5 lacs. This insurance cover for the goods was later on enhanced to Rs. 3 lacs and extra premium was paid by the complainant when cover note/policy No. 48/00/91-98 dated 20.11.1998 was issued. The insurance policy covered the period from 1.11.1997 to 31.10.1998. Oil tanker aforesaid was attached with the respondent No. 2 M/s. Sharma Traders [Transporters and Approved Govt. Contractors], Chandigarh for the purpose of carrying on the business of transportation of MS and HSD high speed diesel from various locations of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

3. On 26.7.1998, the tanker was carrying MS 14000 Ltrs. from Ambala Depot to Shoghi Depot (HP) vide document No. 603424 dated 25.7.1998. The oil tanker turned turtle near Salogra, Tehsil and District Solan resulting in damage to the tanker and the oil was split to the tune of 1035 litres and thereby causing financial loss to the complainant. The First Information Report was lodged at P.S. Solan being FIR No. 152 of 26.7.1998 the complainant gave information to the respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company which deputed Shri Bhardwaj, Surveyor of Solan to assess the loss. The Surveyor conducted the survey and submitted his report to the Insurance Company. The loss of 1035 litres of oil was valued at Rs. 27,945/- which was paid by O.P. No. 2 M/s. Sharma Traders to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited on behalf of the complainant. Later on it was reimbursed by the complainant-respondent No. 2.

4. The respondent No. 1 - Insurance Company required some documents and information to be furnished by the complainant who submitted clarification to the queries by letter dated 30.12.1998. The licence of the driver of the oil tanker, namely Shri Balbir Singh was duly checked by the Surveyor. The claim of the complainant was, however, repudiated by the Insurance Company vide letter dated 8.6.1999. The complainant filed this complaint alleging that the repudiation of the claim was unreasonable, baseless and illogical and amounted to deficiency in service on part of the Insurance Company.

5. In the complaint, prayer was made for the recovery of accidental tanker with two recovery vans, towing charges from Salogara to Solan Police Station and various other amounts including loss of reputation, harassment, humiliation and litigation charges. Interest was also claimed @ 24% per annum on Rs. 85,085/- which was the total of the various items mentioned at Item Nos. (i) to (xii) of the list extracted in the impugned order in Para 1.

6. The O.P. No. 2 admitted the claim of the complainant while the complainant’s case was contested by the Insurance Company (O.P. No. 1). On merit, it was contended that the driver of the oil tanker did not hold a valid driving licence for driving the tanker carrying highly hazardous goods as required by Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act [for short hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act]. The repudiation of the claim was defended on the ground that the decision was taken in a bona fide manner. The averment regarding deficiency in service on the part of Insurance Co