2007(1) CPR 407
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA
Arun Kumar Goel, President; Narinder Singh Thakur and Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Members
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.—Appellant
versus
Sh. Rajnesh Tandon—Respondent
Appeal No. 50/2005
Decided on 6-12-2006

IMPORTANT POINT
Interest on claim at 12% p.a. is on higher side, it is liable to be reduced to 9% p.a.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 15—Appeal against grant of insurance claim—Vehicle insurance—Violation of condition—Driver having no valid and effective licence at the time of accident—Whether be accepted or rejected? (Rejected)

       Held: So far plea of driver having no valid and effective driving licence is concerned, in the rejoinder the respondent clearly explained that before employing the driver, he had satisfied himself about his driving licence. In this behalf we may observe that the owner of a vehicle is not expected to run from office to office to ascertain whether the licence had been actually issued or not. Of course, in a case where litigant like appellant in the present appeal is able to establish that despite knowledge of licence being fake or otherwise the driver being not authorized to drive vehicle of a particular type, the owner still employs such a driver, situation will be totally different. Admittedly that is not the situation in the present case, therefore, this plea is hereby rejected. Another reason to take this view is that, this controversy has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. (Para 4)

       (ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 15—Appeal against grant of insurance claim—Vehicle insurance—Violation of condition—At the time of accident vehicle had more passengers than its capacity—Whether plea be accepted or rejected? (Rejected).

       Held: Now we shall take up the plea that number of passengers travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident being more than its capacity. Again there is no evidence to even remotely suggest that it was either the contributory or sole cause of the accident. Unless this was established, mere number of excess passengers by itself than the capacity is no ground to reject the claim of a litigant like respondent in the present appeal. For taking this view reliance is being placed on a decision in the case of B.V. Nagaraju v. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Hassan, AIR 1996 SC 2054. In the case of this position this plea is also rejected. (Para 5)

       (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Appeal against grant of insurance claim—Vehicle insurance—Consent letter on non-standard claim—Whether of any avail? (No).

       Held: Lastly we will deal with the plea of Mrs. Sood on quantum of compensation having been awarded being on higher side. It was not disputed that the compensation allowed by the District Forum below is as per surveyor’s report. He is an independent person appointed by the Government of India for assessing the loss in such like cases. His opinion has to be given due weightage. While admitting that the amount has been awarded as per surveyor’s report, Mrs. Sood urged that respondent was not entitled to anything beyond Rs. 76,000 in terms of Annexure R-IV i.e. the consent letter. We are sorry to observe that consent is not to be obtained to lay trap to a litigant like respondent in the present appeal. Admittedly the same was not accepted by the appellant. Situation would have been totally different if the payment was made then and there when the respondent consented. This in our opinion further supports his plea that he was forced to execute this consent letter which is not the result of his free will and volition. Another reason not to accept the plea of Mrs. Sood based on Annexure R-IV is that her client had not accepted this document when it came forward to contest the complaint instead of tendering the said amount to show its bona fide. On what basis this was treated as firstly non-standard claim and then consent was obtained nothing could be pointed out from the record by her. (Para 7)

       (iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 15—Appeal against grant of insurance @ 12% on grant of insurance claim—Whether be reduced? (Yes to 9% p.a.)—Appeal partly allowed.

       Held: So far interest part is concerned though Mr. Verma resisted its reduction, but we feel that keeping in view the trend of the National Commission as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court who are ordinarily allowing interest @ 9% per annum in view of the reduced bank rates, this plea urged by Mrs. Sood is hereby accepted and interest is reduced from 12% per annum to 9% per annum and to this extent the impugned order is modified. (Para 6)

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.