BABU RAM THAKUR vs United India Insurance Co.

BY this complaint, the complainant has sought directions from this Commission that the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company) be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,33,022/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till actual payment.

THE relevant facts, briefly, of the case are that the complainant, who was the owner of TDV Truck No. HIS-609 got-this vehicle insured with the Insurance Company for a period extending from 28.1.1990 to 27.1.1991. THE complainant had hypothecated this truck by borrowing loan from respondent No. 2, United Commercial Bank, Chail. On 19.5.1990, when the insurance policy was in force, the truck met with an accident with the result serious damage was caused to the truck. THE complainant informed the Insurance Company about the damage to the truck on account of accident and the Insurance Company appointed the Survey or to assess the damage etc. and the Insurance Company directed the complainant to repair the truck. THE complainant spent an amount of Rs. 1,33,022/- on account of repair of the truck for which he had annexed the bills. In spite of the claim having been submitted and all the documents as required by the Insurance Company having been furnished, according to the complainant he has not been paid the claim amount and hence he is constrained to file the present complaint. The Insurance Company in their reply has raised various objections inasmuch as according to them, all the documents required were not submitted by the complainant to enable them to process the claim of the complainant. However, it has not been denied that the truck had met with an accident. Further, according to the Insurance Company, no F.I.R. was lodged. According to the respondent-Insurance Company, the complainant has violated the terms of the contract of insurance inasmuch as, according to them, at the time of accident, the driver Shri Ami Chand was driving the vehicle and the genuineness or the validity of the licence of Shri Ami Chand was required to be verified and should have been submitted by the complainant to the Insurance Company and not the driving licence of the complainant Babu Ram. The complainant also did not hand over the salvage etc. In substance, the main objection of the Insurance Company is that the driving licence of Shri Ami Chand, the driver of the vehicle which was submitted later, was not found to be genuine on enquiry by the Surveyor who was appointed by the Insurance Company and according to them there is violation of the terms of contract of insurance and, therefore, the Insurance Company is within its right to repudiate the claim of the complainant.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the driver of the complainant Shri Ami Chand was not having a valid driving licence. The licence of Shri Ami Chand has been verified by the Surveyor from the Licensing Authority, Solan and Kandaghat and has been found to be fake and to this effect an affidavit has been filed by one Shri Jai Singh Chauhan, the Surveyor dated 3.3.1997, wherein he has stated that licence No. 136/SLN/87 dated 7.8.1987 alleged to belong lo Ami chand, driver, was in fact not issued by the aforementioned Licensing Authorities. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company also contends that the name of the driver in the claim form has been given as Ami Chand.

BEFORE dealing with these arguments, at the very outset, we may notice that it had come in the evidence that the complainant himself also has got the driving licence and was also driving the vehicle. No doubt in the claim form, which has been shown to us by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, the name of the driver has been given as Ami Chand. In order to resolve the present controversy, we have to find out whether the complainant himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident or his driver Ami Chand, who was in his employment.

SHRI Babu Ram, owner of the truck, has filed an affidavit dated 29.11.1996 whereby in paragraph 2, he had clearly stated that he was himself driving the vehicle at the time of accident and had annexed a copy of his driving licence as Annexure C-l. Also in G.R. (Goods Receipt). Annexure C-2, the name of the driver has been shown as Babu Ram. Again, by an affidavit dated 26.12.1996, the complainant has further clarified that SHRI Ami Chand was in his employment as driver and his licence was also produced at Annexure C-2 with a view to putting an end to the controversy. However, it has been reiterated that the complainant himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The claim form filed by the complainant only reveals that the name of the driver has been shown as Ami Chand but it does not show that the vehicle was being driven by SHRI Ami Chand at the relevant time. There is no satisfactory rebuttal to these averments of the owner of the truck Shri Babu Ram that he was himself driving the vehicle at the relevant time when the vehicle met with an accident. There is no reason to disbelieve his version. No enquiry, admittedly, has been made about the validity of driving licence of Babu Ram, the complainant, nor has any dispute been raised by the Insurance Company about his licence. Accordingly we hold that at the relevant time when the vehicle met with an accident, it is the complainant himself; who is the owner of the truck, was driving the vehicle and that he was having a valid driving licence. However, we may also deal with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that Shri Ami Chand, driver was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant time, although this contention does not arise in view of the aforementioned circumstances.

THE learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has relied upon the affidavit of Shri Jai Singh Chauhan, Surveyor, dated 3.3.1997 whereby it has been stated that the driving licence No. 136/SLN/87 dated 7.8.1987 alleged to belong to Ami Chand was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Kandaghat and Solan as per enquiry report given by him. We find that the number of driving licence of Ami Chand is 196/SLN/87. THE photostat copy of the driving licence annexed alongwith the affidavit by the complainant, Annexure C-Z is not quite legible and the number of his licence from this copy can be read both as 136/SLN/87 and also as 196/SLN/87. In order to clarify this doubt, the complainant has got it verified from the Registering and Licensing Authority, Shimla, Suni SubDivision through a letter dated 30.4.1997 and that Licensing Authority has referred to driving licence No. 196/SLN/87 of Shri Amin Chand s/o Shri Relu Ram, which was renewed by that office on 22.1.1997 with effect from 22.1.1997 to 21.1.2000. THE learned Counsel for the complainant has placed this document on his affidavit in this Court today itself with a limited view to substantiate that the number of licence of Ami Chand is 196/SLN/87 and not 136/SLN/87. Since the validity or genuineness of the driving licence No. 196/SLN/87 was not verified by Shri Jai Singh Chauhan, the Surveyor, such an affidavit of the Surveyor and his enquiry is meaningless and cannot advance the case of the Insurance Company.

THERE is no dispute that the accident took place at the relevant time when the insurance policy was in force and that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. No doubt, the F.I.R. was not lodged by the complainant as he was under the impression that it was not necessary to be lodged as no injury was caused to anybody. However, since the accident and the damage caused to the vehicle is admitted even by the Surveyor, lodging of F.l.R. loses are significance, although in normal circumstances it should have been filed.

The next question that arises for consideration is how much loss has been caused to the vehicle for which the complainant should be compensated.

THE complainant has alleged in paragraph 2 of the complaint that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1,33,022/- and he has annexed the bills in this context Annexures A.I to A.8 and that the repairs were effected at the instance of the Insurance Company and these facts have not been denied in paragraph 2 of the reply by the Insurance Company and these averments also have been supported by the complainant in his affidavit. There is nothing on the record to show that the Insurance Company has got the loss assessed from the Surveyor otherwise and to what extent. Although the complainant has given the bills for a sum of Rs. 1,33,022/-, yet these bills, to our mind, seem to be inflated bills. We are unable to determine the extent of damage. However, leaving it to guess work, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, in case the complainant is awarded half of the claim bill i.e., Rs. 66,600/- and is awarded accordingly. In the light of foregoing, we direct the Insurance Company, respondent No. 1, to pay an amount of Rs. 66,600/- as compensation to indemnify the loss caused to the vehicle alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. with effect from 24.6.1992 till actual payment. The cost of Rs. 500/- is also awarded. The amount so awarded shall be payable within four weeks. Compensation awarded.