The central legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a claim in vehicle insurance is not solely determined by the presence of a valid driving license, and insurable interest and adherence to the limitation period are crucial factors.

ORDER

Nisha Gupta, President. - This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum Jaipur 4 dated 28.3.2016 whereby the claim has been allowed against the appellant on non-standard basis.

2. The contention of the appellant is that the insurance company has no privity of contract with the respondent. The driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence, claim has not been filed within limitation period and as there is fundamental breach of policy conditions the claim could not be settled on non-standard basis. Requisite safe guards were not applied for safety of the vehicle.

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and no interference is needed.

3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

4. The first contention of the appellant is that respondent had no insurable interest in the vehicle and insurance policy was not issued in the name of the respondent. There is no dispute about this fact but policy goes to show that vehicle was subject to hypothication agreement and endorsement of hypothication with respondent company is also made. Even on registration certificate there is a endorsement of hypothication in favour of the respondent and in policy schedule also note of hypothication is endorsed and respondent has rightly relied upon II (2009) CPJ 234 Oriental Insurance Co. v. H.P. State Cooperative Bank where the concerned State Commission has held the bank being beneficiary falls under the definition of consumer. In view of the above the contention of the appellant is not sustainable.

5. The other contention of the appellant is that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and reliance has been placed on II (2010) ACC 518 (SC) New India Assurance Co. v. Kusum where in third party claim liability is assessed which is not the case here.

6. The respondent has relied upon (2003) 6 SCC 420 Jitendra Kumar v. Oriental Insurance Co. where the apex court has held that where the vehicle was damaged without any fault of the driver the insurance company is not empower to repudiate the claim on the ground that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. In the present matter the vehicle was get damaged due to fire without any fault of the driver hence, the claim could not be repudiated on the above ground.

7. The appellant has further relied upon I (2015) CPJ 206 (NC) HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. v. Bhagchand Saini where the vehicle was stolen and delay in intimation was found fatal which is not the case here.

8. The other contention of the appellant is that the claim was not submitted within limitation and reliance has been placed on I (2009) CPJ 1 (SC) H.P.State Forest Company v. United India Insurance Co. but here in the present case the complaint has been filed within period of limitation hence, the contention has no merit.

9. The other contention of the appellant is that the vehicle was left unattended but first information report lodged immediately after the incident clearly shows that the vehicle was standing on the side of the road and a rift occurred between the persons hence, the driver of the vehicle left it by parking it at the side of the road hence it cannot be said that the vehicle was left unattended.

10. In view of the above , the claim has rightly been allowed. There is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.