KAMLADEVI BISNOI vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 12.1.1999 in Complaint No. 440/1997 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

THE averments in the complainant were that complainant is the owner of the truck which was comprehensively insured with the respondent covering the risk from 8.2.1996 to 7.2.1997. It was also averred that the said vehicle met with an accident on 10.7.1996 while being driven by the driver Panchilal. THE complainant laid claim with the respondent. However, her claim was repudiated by the respondent/insurer by their letter dated 28.4.1997, on the ground that the driver did not hold valid and effective driving licence, to drive the vehicle. Aggrieved by the repudiation as above, the complainant approached the District Forum by way of complaint. The respondent/insurer in his written version reiterated that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence inasmuch as he was not authorized to drive heavy motor vehicle, which the complainant''s truck was. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the repudiation as above by the respondent/insurer was justified.

THE learned Counsel for the parties were heard and record was perused. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the repudiation of the complainant''s claim by the respondent/insurer was justified?

AN application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC was also filed in this appeal along with a copy of the certificate of registration of the appellant''s truck, which shows that the gross vehicle weight of the complainant''s vehicle was 16,200 kgs. As the documents as above appears to be necessary for proper disposal of the controversy between the parties, the application is allowed. The document as above would show that it was a heavy motor vehicle. From the documents placed on record even by the complainant, it would appear that the complainant had licence to drive only light motor vehicle and motorcycle. This is clear from the copy of the licence enclosed with the letter of A.K. Bhattacharjee dated 8.4.1997. Licence of the appellant/driver has not been produced, though opportunity to the complainant/appellant was given in this regard. It would thus appear that the driver was not having a licence to drive heavy motor vehicle. Since the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy motor vehicle, consequently, respondent/insurer was justified in repudiating the complainant''s claim, as has been held by the District Forum. We find no infirmity in the said finding. Consequently, this appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.