IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – The NCDRC, under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act (pari materia to Section 58(1)(b) of the 2019 Act), cannot act as a second court of appeal. It cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings of the lower courts merely because a different view is possible. Interference is justified only in cases of: Jurisdictional error (exceeding or failing to exercise jurisdiction) and Material irregularity or illegality.
(2) Burden of Proof regarding Driving License – The onus lies on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving license. In this case, the license was issued by the Government of Nagaland. The Commission held that since the license was issued prior to a specific Public Information circular questioning such licenses, it remains valid. The Insurer failed to discharge the burden of proving otherwise.
(3) Settlement of Claims without Succession Certificate – While the Insurance Company insisted on a Succession Certificate from a Civil Court, the Consumer Fora looked at the substance of the matter. Since the legal heirs were identified and the nominee had no objection, the District Forum’s decision to award the compensation directly to the complainants (wife and children) was upheld, rejecting the technical delay tactics regarding succession documents.

ORDER (ORAL)

This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the order dated 09.10.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (the ‘State Commission) in First Appeal No.1017 of 2017 wherein the Appeal by the Appellant/OP was dismissed, affirming the Order dated 12.06.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Rohtak (“District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 415 of 2015, wherein the Complaint was allowed.

2. For convenience, the parties in this matter are denoted as referred in the Consumer Complaint before District Forum. Smt. Rekha & Ors. is the Complainants (Respondents herein). Meanwhile, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., is identified as Opposite Party (Petitioner herein) in the present matter.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants, are that they filed this complaint with the averments that Sandeep, husband of complainant no. 1, father of complainants nos. 2 and 3, son of complainant no. 4, and brother of complainant no. 5 was the owner of truck no. HR63-B-1378. He insured the vehicle with OP Insurance Co. for the period from 28.09.2014 to 27.09.2015 under policy No. 421600/31/14/6300002224. Sandeep had also paid an additional premium of Rs.100 to cover the risk of owner-cum-driver for a sum of Rs.200,000. On 27.04.2015, Sandeep was driving his truck, with the second driver, Shri Bhagwan, sitting beside him. A truck bearing registration No. MP-09-HG-3818, which was traveling ahead had stopped suddenly without reason and, as a result, Sandeep’s truck which was behind struck into the back side of the said truck. Sandeep and Shri Bhagwan sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot. The accident was caused solely due to the carelessness and negligence of the driver of said truck. The damaged truck was transported from Ratlam to Rohtak and repaired at various workshops costing Rs.635,420 to the complainants. The matter was reported to police, and FIR No.105 dated 27.04.2015 was registered against the driver of the offending truck. Due to the total damage to the truck, the complainants suffered huge financial losses. Sandeep, son of Sarup Singh and the registered owner of the truck, died in the accident. Complainants nos.l to 4 are now the owners of the truck as legal heirs. Complainant no. 5 (since deceased) was the nominee under the policy and had no objection to the amount in question being released in favor of Complainants nos. 1-4. The Complainants lodged their claim with OP and served a legal notice, but to no avail. They sought directions to OP to pay Rs.200,000 for the death of Sandeep (owner-cum- driver) under the policy; Rs.825,000/- for damage to the truck; and Rs.475,000/- as compensation for harassment, along with interest and litigation expenses.

4. On notice, the OP appeared and filed its written reply, submitting therein that Complainants nos. 1 to 5 are not the successors of the deceased Sandeep. A Succession Certificate is required for claim settlement. The brother of Complainant no. 5 claimed himself as nominee of the deceased Sandeep, and submitted the claim form for Sandeep’s personal accident claim and own-damage (OD) claim. However, Rekha & Ors never applied to the company for personal accident or own-damage claim of the vehicle. Shri Uppal & Associates was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor, submitted his report on 28.08.2015 assessing the loss to the vehicle at Rs.191,175, after deducting depreciation as per the terms and conditions of the policy. OPs denied that Complainants spent Rs.635,420 on repairing the vehicle. It is averred that the amount assessed by the surveyor cannot be released till verification of the driving license and submission of a Succession Certificate from the competent court. Even the name of the owner has not been transferred in the RC of the truck in question and the RC still stands in the name of deceased Sandeep. The petitioner San