Kusum Goyal vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD

SMT. Kusum Goyal wife of Sh. Krishan Kumar Goyal of Ambala Cantt. has come up in appeal against the order dated 22.4.1996 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ambala, whereby her complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the New India Assurance Company has been dismissed on the ground that the Forum was unable to hold in the absence of the original driving licence that the driver was having a genuine, effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident.

SMT. Kusum Goyal, owner of Oil Tanker bearing registration No. HR-01-A 5447, approached the District Consumer Forum, Ambala, with the grievance that even though she had got her tanker insured with the Insurance Company for Rs. 4,40,000/ - for the period of one year commencing from 14.5.1992 to 13.5.-1993 against all risks, the Insurance Company did not pay the compensation for the damage done to the tanker in an accident despite the report of the Surveyor recommending a claim of Rs. 1,12,128/-. The Insurance Company, in their reply, pleaded that as the complainant had failed to produce the driving licence of the driver Amarjit Singh, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, it was not possible for the Insurance Company to pay the necessary compensation. It was further pleaded that in fact the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Before the District Consumer Forum, it was pleaded that as the driver Amarjit Singh had left the service of the complainant, it was not possible for her to produce the necessary driving licence. However, a photostat attested copy of the driving licence of the driver was produced before the District Forum and a copy thereof was also supplied to the opposite party. On the other hand, the Insurance Company pleaded that the fact that the complainant had produced the Photostat attested copy of the driving licence dated 8.6.1995, showed that the complainant did have access to the original driving licence. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.

In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the complainant before the District Forum to contend that there was ample evidence on the record to prove that the complainant was in fact in possession of the valid driving licence at the time when the accident took place. The learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that in addition to the Photostat copy of the driving licence produced by the complainant before the District Forum, a copy whereof was also supplied to the Insurance Company, the District Forum had also specifically passed an order on 6.3.1996 giving 20 days'' time to the Insurance Company to make necessary verifications with regard to the genuineness of the driving licence. Since the Insurance Company had failed to do so, it was a clear indication that the licence which driver Amarjit Singh was having in fact a valid driving licence. In view of this position, the learned Counsel contended that when the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company had already assessed the loss to the tanker to the tune of Rs. 98,811 / -, the complainant was entitled to this amount with interest at the rate of 18%, the denial of which claim clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.

ON the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Bedi, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, has pleaded that though the Insurance Company had deputed an Investigator to enquire about the validity of the driving licence of Amarjit Singh and the said Investigator had reported to the Insurance Company that the driving licence was not genuine, it could easily be inferred that the photostat copy of the driving licence tendered by the complainant "seemed to be fake on the face of it". After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the claim of the complainant could not be repudiated by the Insurance Company on the solitary ground that the complainant had not produced the original driving licence of the driver Amarjit Singh, who had left her service and the complainant had produced only a photostat attested copy of the driving licence. The repudiation of the claim in these circumstances clearly amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. Hence, we have no hesitation in allowing the complaint and award the amount assessed by the Surveyor alongwith interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the repudiation of the claim. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed with the aforesaid direction with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.