IMPORTANT POINT
A person cannot have two different driving licenses issued by two different transport authorities at one time.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding—Petitioner/Complainant has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against impugned order dated 05.08.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh(for short, ‘State Commission’) in (First Appeal No. 318 of 2013)

2. Brief facts are that Petitioner got its vehicle insured from the Respondent/Opposite Party, for the period from 4.3.2009 to 3.3.2010 for the insured declared value, to the tune of Rs.6,72,842/-, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.8,390/-. On 18.11.2009, at around 7:00 P.M, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident, near Zirakpur, on National Highway No.1,i.e. Chandigarh–New Delhi Road. The matter was amicably resolved, for which DDR was also lodged, at Police Station Zirakpur, Punjab. Intimation of the accident was duly given on the same day, to the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner was asked to provide the driving license of the driver, valid on the date of accident as the earlier license pertained to the period subsequent to the date of accident. Subsequently, the earlier license of the driver was traced out and same was provided to the respondent. However, respondent vide letter dated 22.05.2010, repudiated the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident was not holding an effective and valid driving license. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the respondent amounted to deficiency in rendering service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed, directing respondent to pay Rs.6,72,842/-i.e. the amount of total insured declared value; damages to the tune of Rs.1,83,539/, inclusive of estimation charges; compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs on account of deficiency, in rendering service; Rs.3,300/-, on account of towing charges spent by it, from the site of accident, to the garage of the repairer and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.75,000/-.

4. The Respondent in its written version, admitted that vehicle in question was insured with them, for the relevant period. It was also admitted that intimation, with regard to the accident of the vehicle in question was received and claim was filed by the complainant. It was also admitted that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, was appointed, which vide its report dated 29.04.2010, assessed the loss on “net of salvage basis” to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-. It was stated that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, in its report pointed out that the licence of the driver, provided by the petitioner was not valid and effective on the date of accident. Subsequently, petitioner sent another driving license of the driver, issued by the Licensing Authority, Zunheboto, Nagaland. However, the claim was not payable, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy and therefore, the same was rightly repudiated, vide letter dated 22.05.2010. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Respondent nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II U.T., Chandigarh (for short, ‘District Forum’) dismissed the complaint in terms of its order dated 20.06.2013.

6. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same at the preliminary stage, being devoid of merits.

7. Hence, this revision.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as perused the written submissions filed by the petitioner and gone through the record.

9. It has been contended by the learned counsel,that the State Commission has travelled beyond the pleadings and concluded that the revisionist’s driver was not holding the valid driving license. However, on the contrary from the bare perusal of the pleadings, it is evident that respondent never challenged t