Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Seetakanta Patnaik —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2045 of 2019
(Against the Order dated 30/05/2019 in Appeal No.394/2007 of the State Commission Orissa)
Decided on 8.10.2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kishore Rawat and Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance claim even though the driving licence held by driver at the time of accident upheld.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 58]—Motor Vehicle—Damage—Claim for—Vehicle of the complainant met with an accident sustained substantial damages—Claim for reimbursement of Rs. 1,68,000/- repudiated on ground that driver at time of accident did not have a valid driving license—District Forum allowed the complaint and the same upheld by State Commission—Hence this revision petition—Whether For a below erred in allowing the claim even though the driving licence held by the driver at the time of accident, upon verification by an investigator appointed by the petitioner was fake ?—(No)—Complainant had indeed engaged a duly licensed driver albeit it turned out that he held a fake licence renewed on the basis of a fake original licence—Petitioner failed to show how the complainant wilfully allowed the vehicle to be driven by a fake licence holder—Benefit of doubt thus would have to be in favour of the complainant. (Paras 7 to 16)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member.—This Revision Petition No. 2045 of 2019 challenges the order dated 30.05.2019 passed by the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in First Appeal No. 394/2007. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed the appeal against the order of District Forum, Nabarangpur dated 14.12.2006 in C.D. Case No. 46/2006.
2. Briefly, the Complainant, Seetakanta Patnaik, owner of Truck No.AP -02-T-8512, had obtained it’s insurance cover from the petitioner/OP-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (OP hereafter), for the period 09.06.2005 to 08.06.2006, vide policy no. 797/06. On 03.09.2005, the truck met with an accident at about 12:05 pm near village Kundraguda. A police case was registered vide Borigumma PS Case number 88. The said truck sustained substantial damage. As it was not in a position to run, it was loaded in another truck and shifted to Bhandar Gharani Engineering Garage, Nabarangpur, at a cost of Rs. 3,000/-.. Further, the complainant paid Rs. 90,000/- towards manual repair charges in addition to Rs.75,000/-for purchase of parts. All the bills were submitted to the OP; however, OP repudiated the claim on the plea that the driver at the time of the accident did not have a valid driving license. A consumer complaint was filed, seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs. 1,68,000/- with interest from the date of filing of claim till payment. This was contested by the petitioner/OP (hereafter OP) through a written reply. Admitting the factum of insurance of the said vehicle and the accident on 03.09.2005, Op stated that upon intimation, an authorised surveyor for spot verification of incident was appointed. Upon receipt of his report, OP took steps to verify the driving license (DL). This revealed that the Koraput DL was issued on the basis of the original license issued at Dhenakanal. The original DL, per report dated 12.03.2006 of the investigator, Mr. Bhagwan Ojha, Adv., was found not to have been issued in favour of Ch. Appana, the driver. Immediately thereafter, OP intimated the complainant about repudiation of his insurance claim, on 31.03.2006. Therefore, OP contended that it was not deficient in service: it had responded promptly to the accident and settled the claim by repudiating it.
3. The District Forum, after considering the pleadings and evidence, allowed the complaint and observed as under :-
“In result we ordered that,
1. The Opp. Party, B.M., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Jeypore is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- towards insurance amount of the truck and pay Rs. 5,000/- (Total one lakh seventy three thousands only) towards claim compensation & cost of this litigation to the complainant within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the amount will bear 12% interest p.a. after lapse of the above said period.
Pronounced in the open forum on 14th December, 2006.”
(ad verbatim per record)
4. Dissatisfied, the OP went in appeal before the State commission & the following order is directed as under :-
“In view of the above observations and decision of Apex court, we are of the considered opinion that appellant is liable to pay the repairing cost of Rs.1,68,000/- only to respondent.
In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 14.12.2006 passed by learned District Forum, Nabarangur in C.D. Case No. 46 of 2006.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.”
5. Hence, the present revision petition.
6. This RP was heard on 29.11.2019.
7. Basic issue is whether the lower fora have committed an apparent error of law by allowing this insurance claim even though the driving licence held by the driver at the time of accident, upon verification by an investigator appointed by the petitioner/OP (hereafter OP), was fake.
8. Learned counsel for the OP arguing his case submitted that the law on this is clear: A driving licence issued by an authority on the basis of another driving licence which is found to be fake is also
