Jaliluddin vs Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1397/011 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Jaliluddin by which appeal filed by respondent-OP was accepted and order of the District Forum was set aside.l

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/petitioner ''s vehicle, a Mahindra Maxi Cab was insured with the OP/respondent for the period 20.7.08 to 19.7.09. On 11.2.2009, the vehicle was standing in a traffic jam and a truck while reversing negligently, hit it. Complainant further alleged that Basu Verma was the driver of the vehicle. Other person Sunil Vishwakarma sitting in the vehicle sustained injuries but in FIR lodged with the Police Sunil Vishwakarma has been incorrectly mentioned as driver and Basu Verma as the cleaner. Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that driver Sunil Vishwakarma was not possessing effective driving licence. Respondent-OP filed written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed the respondent-Insurance Company to pay Rs.68,254.20, as driver of the vehicle did not contribute to the accident. Learned State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground that driver Sunil Vishwakarma was not holding a valid and effective driving licence against which this revision petition has been filed. Heard the petitioner in person and perused record.

It is an admitted fact that petitioner ''s vehicle was insured with the respondent and during subsistence of insurance, petitioner ''s vehicle was damaged in accident in a traffic jam. The main question is who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As per FIR which was lodged by Sunil Vishwakarma he himself was driving the vehicle and Basu Verma was the cleaner. As per paragraph 7 of the complaint, police submitted challan showing Sunil Vishwakarma as driver of the vehicle. As immediately after the accident, report was lodged by Sunil Vishwakarma showing himself as driver of the vehicle, this fact cannot be disputed at later stage. Sunil Vishwakarma himself gave his licence for verification to the Insurance Company and spot surveyor who went to the accident site on the same day also reported that Sunil Vishwakarma was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In such circumstances, learned District Forum and State Commission have rightly come to the conclusion that at the time of accident Sunil Vishwakarma was driving the vehicle.

IT is an admitted position that at the time of accident Sunil Vishwakarma was not having effective and valid driving licence as it expired before accident. In the absence of valid driving licence Sunil Vishwakarma was driving the vehicle which met with an accident and in such circumstances, complainant was not entitled to any compensation and the learned State Commission has rightly set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.