NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.-/ vs Baldev Singh

THIS is an appeal filed by the opposite party in Complaint Case No. 69/91 on the file of the District Forum, Sangrur, challenging the correctness of the order dated December 19, 1991, passed by the District Forum in so far as it directed the opposite party- appellant to pay Rs. 15.000/- per annum with effect from 16.1.1989 till the final realisation of the amount and also awarded Rs. 110/- as litigation expenses under the said order.

THE complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum stating that he obtained the services of the National Insurance Company by getting his vehicle bearing registration No. PCT 8787 insured with effect from 12.9.1988 to 11.9.1989. That vehicle was involved in an accident resulting in the death of Ved Parkash alias Bilu Ram, resident of Dhuri on the night intervening 14.1.1989 and 15.1.1989. It was alleged that he effected a settlement with the heirs of the deceased with the permission of the Company through its Divisional Manager, Sangrur, and paid Rs. 15,000/- to Smt. Shimla Devi widow of the deceased on 16.1.1989. On these grounds, the complainant requested the District Forum to direct the opposite party to indemnify him for the payment made by him to Smt. Shimla Devi. It was alleged that the company was liable to pay the amount under ''No Fault Liability'' under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, without proof or finding fault and production of documents if the death was prima facie proved. THE opposite party filed version on 13.9.1991. It traversed the allegations made by the complainant. Para 4 of the version of the case is as follows: - "As the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle was not valid at the time of accident, the claim is not payable as detailed in para 3 of the reply. As the claim is not payable, the complainant is not entitled to claim interest, costs and litigation expenses. In the additional plea, it was stated that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the claim of the claimant had been repudiated by the Insurance Company.

After a detailed discussion of the facts as disclosed by the materials produced on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that Insurance Company was bound to indenmify the complainant for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- paid by him to Smt. Shimla Devi in pursuance of the compromise entered into between the concerned parties. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the opposite party has now come up in appeal.

WE have heard Shri Ravinder Arora, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri G.S. Chadha learned Counsel for the respondent and considered the record with requisite care and examined the order under appeal in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. In this appeal it is contended before us by the appellant (opposite party) that as the Driver had no valid license at the time of accident, the claimant was not entitled to the amount claimed by him and that the claim of the complainant having been repudiated by the National Insurance Company, there was no justification at all for the District Forum to direct payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent has vehemently urged that in the present case, the Insurance Company had adopted dubious method to repudiate the claim under the policy to save their skin.

AFTER hearing both sides, we are of the view that the aforesaid contention of the appellant cannot be upheld. It is clear from the record that the complainant had settled the claim for compensation with Smt. Shimla Devi, widow of the deceased with the permission of the Insurance Company through its Divisional Manager, Sangrur. Copy of the compromise deed dated 16.1.1989 does not show any condition if the compromise was subjected to the production of driving license of the complainant. It is to be noticed that there is only an oral assertion of the Insurance Company that compromise was subject to the production of driving license being found to be valid. We have scanned through a letter dated 22.1.1991 of the Insurance Company wherein it has been clearly stated that the Courts do not attach much importance to the validity of the driving license at least for ''No Fault Liability'' claims. An authority 1986 ACJ 82 has also been referred in that letter. In the present case, it has not been shown that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not have any valid or effective driving license at any time or that he was disqualified from obtaining any driving license. Therefore, we are clearly of the opinion that the alleged repudiation of the claim under the policy by the Insurance Company cannot be said to be a decision taken in good faith after due exercise of care and proper application of mind. Rather, it was arbitrary, oppressive and malicious. Having considered the matter carefully, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify interference with the order of the District Forum. There is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.