The court emphasized the importance of verifying all relevant documents, including driving licenses, and highlighted the significance of compliance with insurance regulations.

ORDER

Arun Kumar Goel, President (Oral)- Heard learned Counsel. From the admitted facts what transpired is that vehicle on the date of its accident was covered under a valid policy of insurance. Further it is also not in dispute that policy in question was issued covering additional risk of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 for which he had paid extra premium. Charging of extra premium and covering risk to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000 is again admitted between the parties. In view of these facts, other detailed facts are not being noted which are otherwise mentioned in the order of the District Forum below.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant made two-fold submissions in support of this appeal. Firstly, according to him, deceased was not on the wheel when accident took place and secondly he was not holding a driving licence at all. Thus, according to him, on both these grounds, this appeal deserves to be allowed and impugned order set aside.

3. This position was seriously contested and resisted by the learned Counsel for the respondent who submitted that on the peculiar facts of this case, this apepal deserves to be not only dismissed with costs, but punitive damages be allowed to his clients for having filed this frivolous complaint. He contested both the pleas urged on behalf of the appellant.

4. We shall deal with the second submission of Mr. Sharma first. The question that needs to be examined in that behalf is whether the deceased was holding a driving licence or not. Suffice it to say in this behalf that when insurance was undertaken, which is factually admitted, it pre-supposes that the Insurance Agent/Development Officer of the appellant had verified all the documents including driving licence of the deceased owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. If he was not possessed of the driving licence, there was hardly any occasion for having charged extra premium to cover his personal risk. Why premium was charged when driver was not holding a licence, learned Counsel for the appellant had no explanation to offer.

5. Best person to have stated something in this behalf was the Insurance Agent/Development Officer who had undertaken the insurance of the vehicle together with the personal risk upto the extent of Rs. 2,00,000 after having charged premium. Why his affidavit was not filed, Mr. Sharma had no answer save and except for taking shelter under his submission that the deceased was not on the wheel. Suffice it to say in this behalf that it is not the condition precedent and/or requirement of law that when accident takes places, unless owner-cum-driver was on the wheel, appellant would be exonerated of its liability.

6. With a view to support this appeal further, reference was made by Mr. Sharma to Annexure R1, Policy Schedule including its terms as well as Annexure R2, particularly GR-36 thereof. Here we confronted Mr. Sharma as to whether the provisions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder's Interests) Regulations, 2002, were complied with, with special reference to its Regulation 3(3) again he was not able to satisfy us on this account.

7. No other point was urged.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

9. All interim orders passed from time-to-time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has undertaken to collect certified copy of this order from the Reader of this Court. On the other hand, it has been stated by Mr. Avinash Sharma that learned Counsel at Shimla Mr. Vijay Sharma will collect certified copy of this order. Office shall do the needful.