Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Gurcharan Singh —Petitioner
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.124 of 2012
Decided on 3.11.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajeev Sagar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
While passing order State Commission should go into depth of matter.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to Truck in accident—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal holding that driver of vehicle did not possess a valid and effective licence at the time of incident—While passing impugned order, State Commission have not gone into depth of matter—In case, they found that there were two contrary reports on record, they should have summoned concerned authorities before them alongwith relevant record and tried to thrash out the issue involved—Driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence for a heavy transport vehicle— Insurance Company directed to make payment to complainant in terms of order of District Forum i.e. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,43,103/- alongwith 12% interest and also give him amount of Rs. 50,000/- as damages as allowed by District Forum.
Held: The basic issue to be considered in the present Revision Petition is whether at the time of the accident, the driver of the vehicle was in possession of a valid and effective driving licence or not. The facts and circumstances on record as narrated above indicate that the licence no. 9995/Ambala/97 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licencing Authority Ambala in favour of Amarjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh, valid for a light motor vehicle, which was subsequently endorsed for a HTV vehicle by the Sub-Divisional Officers, Saharanpur. On the other hand, the licence no. 9995/Amb/97 was issued by the office of the District Transport Officer, Ambala in favour of Randhir Singh s/o Prem Singh. It is made out, therefore, that while passing the impugned order, the State Commission have not gone into the depth of the matter. In case, they found that there were two contrary reports on record, they should have summoned the concerned authorities before them alongwith relevant record and tried to thrash out the issue involved. A careful study of the documents available on record makes it clear that the report procured by M.L. Ahuja, Investigator was obtained from the office of the District Transport Officer, Ambala, as per which, the licence was issued in favour of Randhir Singh s/o Prem Singh. However, the report received from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Civil, Ambala and the letter dated 09.01.2012, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Civil, Saharanpur bring out clearly that there was a valid licence in favour of Amarjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh. The State Commission seems to have lost sight of the fact that the District Transport Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Civil are two different authorities, having concurrent powers to issue licences for motor vehicles.
From the above material on record, it is made out that Amarjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh was holding a valid and effective driving licence for a heavy transport vehicle.
Based on the discussion above, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is perverse in the eyes of law, having been passed after an erroneous interpretation of the facts and circumstances on record. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The District forum observed in their order dated 04.10.2007 that they were allowing the claim, as filed by the complainant, as he had produced evidence for having spent an amount of Rs. 1,43,103/- on the repair of the vehicle. It is held, therefore, that the order passed by the District Forum is valid in the eyes of law and the same is upheld. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to make payment to the complainant in terms of the order of the District Forum i.e. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,43,103/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from after three months of the accident till the date of actual payment and also give him an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as damages as allowed by the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 06.09.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 3054/2007, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Gurcharan Singh, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar dated 04.10.2007, allowing the consumer complaint no. 1127/2006, filed by the present petitioner, Gurcharan Singh, was set aside.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Gurcharan Singh is the owner of a vehicle truck, bearing registration no. HR58B 3872 HTV, which was insured with the opposite party (OP)/respondent Insurance Company, vide policy no. 2006/14489 valid from 03.03.2006 to 02.03.2007. When the said truck was coming from Latoor, Maharashtra to Panipat, Haryana, loaded with cotton bales on 09.03.2006, it met with an accident near village Kalanaur, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak (Haryana). An intimation about the accident was furnished to the Insurance Company by the complainant and the said Company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant got the vehicle repaired and spent an amount of Rs. 1,43,103/- on the same. However, the OP Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim vide letter dated 13.09.2006. The consumer complaint in question was then filed, seeking directions to the Insurance Company to pay the insurance claim of Rs. 1,43,103/- alongwith interest and also a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the incident. As per report from the licencing authority Ambala, the licence no. 9995/Amb/97 had been issued to Randhir Singh s/o Prem Singh, and not to Amarjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh. The insured had, therefore, violated the terms and conditions of the policy in question, as the driver Amarjit Singh was not holding a valid driving licence. The complainant was, therefore, not entitled to be given any part of the claim. The OP further submitted that the vehicle was being plied for commercial purpose and hence, the complainant did not fall under the category of ‘consumer’. The Insurance Company further stated that as per the assessment made by the surveyor, M.L. Garg of Yamuna Nagar, the loss was assessed to be Rs. 90,137/- minus the salvage value, as per their report dated 04.05.2006. It was wrong to say that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs. 1,43,103/- on the repairs.
4. The District Forum, after examining the averments made by the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,43,103/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from after three months of the accident till realisation. A punitive amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed upon the OP Insurance Company and they were directed to further pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. The District Forum concluded that it had been proved from the evidence on record that the claimant had paid an amount of Rs. 1,43,103/- while getting the repair work done. The District Forum also observed that as per report dated 27.09.2007, procured by the complainant from the licencing authority, it was clear that licence no. 9995/Ambala/96-97 was issued on 08.01.1997 in favour of Amarjit Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh for light motor vehicle and the said licence was valid upto 30 years i.e. 07.01.2027. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said Commission observed in the impugned order that there were contr
