IMPORTANT POINT
Absence of valid driving license – Neither the absence of valid driving license can justify the theft nor can it be a defence for the insurance company to repudiate the claim. Holding a driving license was not having a direct effect for occurring the theft incident.

ORDER

Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II.—This appeal has been directed against the Judgment dated 21.05.2015 passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum, Haridwar in consumer case No. 151 of 2013 styled as Meera Devi vs. NIC, wherein learned District Consumer Forum was pleased to allow the petition of the respondent by directing the appellant to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand) alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum within one month from the date of the order.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant No. 1 is the mother of complainant No. 2; both are the joint owner of the insured vehicle bearing registration No. UK08-M-0356 which was purchased after obtaining a loan of Rs. 4,25,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand) from the State Bank of India – opposite party No. 2. The insurance of the insured vehicle (Tractor) commenced from 03.07.2012 to 02.07.2013. Sh. Bhanwar Singh, uncle of complainant No. 2 (Jeth of complainant No. 1) was going to the house of his relative situated at Village Kutba P.Section Shahpur, District Muzzaffernagar, as he stopped the insured vehicle at Village Dugchari for natural calls and went for that purpose; then he heard the noise that someone has started it for taking the vehicle; he raised noise but in vain; thus, the unknown person has committed the theft. The matter was reported to the Police Station Devband and FIR No. 395/2012 under Section 379 IPC was registered. The information about the theft of insured vehicle was also sent to the insurer-appellant. The police submitted a Final Report and closed the file. It was also stated in the complaint that on submitting the claim for getting insured amount from the insurer, the insurer (Insurance Company) has repudiated their claim as no claim case on the ground that the insured tractor was insured for agriculture purpose, but it was used commercially at the time of occurrence. It is also a defence plea that the Tractor was being plied by a driver without a valid and effective driving license.

3. The opposite party No. 2 – State Bank of India in its written statement admitted stating that the insured tractor was purchased for agriculture purpose after the sanction of agriculture loan and got insured with the opposite party No. 1. A report was lodged in the local police station where the theft incident of insured vehicle occurred, thereafter the claimant has submitted her claim for grant of insured amount. Matter is between the insured and insurer, the bank has no concern, hence complaint be dismissed against the bank.

4. The insurer, i.e. the insurance company, in its written statement has narrated that the insured tractor was used for commercial purpose; it was driven by Sh. Bhanwar Singh, who was not holding a valid and effective driving license. The insured tractor was not used (at the time of theft incident) for agricultural purpose whereas insurance was approved only for agricultural purpose; it is further stated that a letter dated 14.03.2013 was sent to the claimant stating reason for treating her claim as no claim.

5. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum (now District Commission) has passed the impugned judgment.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal has been preferred before the Commission.

7. We heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

8. It is contended on behalf of the appellant – insurer that the vehicle was being used for non-commercial purpose and the driving licence of the driver of the Tractor was not valid for commercial driving at the time of alleged theft, therefore, claim was repudiated. It is further argued that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the company, because the liability of the appellant was not covered by the condition and provisions of the policy, but the District Forum totally disregarded the pleas taken in the written statement of the insurer and pass