Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member and
C. Viswanath, Member
United India Insurance Company Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Sumanta Bera —Respondent
Revision Petition No.700 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 18/11/2019 in Appeal No.499/2016 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 26.11.2020

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because of expiry of period of driving licence and omission to get the licence renewed, it cannot be said that there is breach of policy condition.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(c) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 2(6)]—Motor accident—Damage to vehicle—Repudiation of claim—Legality of—Vehicle of respondent met with on accident on 24.8.2015—Claim rejected by Insurance company on ground had driver of vehicle did not possess a valid and effective licence on day of accident—Rs. 1,60,000/- allowed towards repairing cost of vehicle by District Forum—State commission upheld the same—Hence this petition—As a matter of fact driver was not holding a valid licence at relevant date, however driver was a licenced driver—Driving licence was renewed later on and thereafter it cannot be said that the driver had lost his competence for driving the vehicle—Complainants insurance claim found justified—Since the repudiation of claim was made prior to receiving of surveyor’s report, plea that Fora below did not consider the same not accepted. (Paras 6 to 11)
Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner – Insurance Company challenging the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. A/499 of 2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the respondent met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy issued by the petitioner – insurance company. The accident occurred on 24.08.2015. The insurance claim was rejected by the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the day of the accident.

3. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the complainant filed a consumer complaint no. CC/06/2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur (‘the District Forum’). The complaint was resisted by the insurance company by filing the written statement stating that the driving licence of the driver was valid only upto 26.04.2015 and the driver did not get it renewed, thus, there was no valid driving licence with the driver on the day of the accident, i.e., 24.08.2015. Later on the driver got the licence renewed on 01.09.2015 and it was valid upto 21.11.2026 for non-transport vehicle and till 01.09.2018 for transport vehicle. Thus, the insurance company had rightly repudiated the claim. However, the District Forum vide its order dated 06.05.2016 has allowed the complaint and observed as under :

“Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case no. 06 of 2016 is allowed on contest with cost against the opposite party – insurance company. Opposite party insurance company is directed to pay Rs.1,60,000/- as repairing cost of the vehicle to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint within a month from this date of order. Opposite party to also pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this date of order.”

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission being appeal no. A/499 of 2016 and the State Commission vide its order dated 18.11.2019 dismissed the appeal of the insurance company.

5. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the State Commission has wrongly observed that the licence was issued on 31.03.2000 and the same was valid till 21.11.2026 for non-transport vehicle and till 01.09.2018 for transport vehicle. The State Commission has thus concluded that the insurance company could not prove that on the day of the accident, i.e., 24.08.2015 there was no valid driving licence with the driver. The learned counsel has stated that the observation of the State Commission is against the record as the insurance company had filed the report of the licence issuing authority that the licence had expired on 26.04.2015 and it was renewed on 01.09.2015. Thus, there was no valid driving licence from 27.04.2015 to 01.09.2015.

7. It was further stated by the learned counsel that the District Forum has allowed total repair cost of Rs.1,60,000/- whereas the surveyor has assessed the loss only for Rs.1,06,353/-, therefore, even if the insurance claim is approved, the same can only be approved for Rs.1,06,353/-.

8. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record. The District Forum has clearly stated in its order that the licence had expired on 26.04.2015 and was got renewed on 01.09.2015 and the licence became valid upto 01.09.2018 for transport vehicle. The District Forum has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Abha Sinha and Ors., decided on 27.02.1998 wherein the following has been held:

5. First of all, I will take up the first point r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTMerely because of expiry of period of driving licence and omission to get the licence renewed, it cannot be said that there is breach of policy condition.

IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because of expiry of period of driving licence and omission to get the licence renewed, it cannot be said that there is breach of policy condition.