New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs CAPT.JAGDISH KUMAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Bilaspur dated January, 24, 1996, whereby, the opposite party/appellant "hereinafter referred to an appellant" has been directed to remove the ''deficiency in service'' by paying to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,69,663.24 on account of insurance claim from the date of repudiation of claim to the date of the payment of claim. The appellant was also directed to pay to the complainant the costs of the complaint which quantified at Rs. 1000/-.

THE facts set out in the complaint are that the complainant owns a truck bearing Registration No. HP-24-4245, which was insured with the opposite party-appellant vide Insurance Policy No. 31/22850. On the night intervening 26/ 27.1.95, at about 2.00 p.m. the truck met with an accident near a place called Swarghat and at the time of accident, the policy was in force. THE appellant was informed about such an accident and the Surveyor was deputed by the appellant, who after inspection, required the complainant to get the vehicle repaired. Consequently, the complainant get the vehicle repaired and spent Rs. 2,42,430.75 and submitted the claim to the appellant. The appellant has repudiated the claim on the grounds that the man who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident did not possess a valid driving licence and the driver namely Sh. Gambhir Singh who was driving the vehicle at that time was not having a valid driving licence issued by the Registration and Licencing Authority, Kalpa (Kinnaur) H.P.

Further, according to the appellant, the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle was used by the complainant for commercial purpose and the complainant is not a ''Consumer''. On merits, it has been admitted by the appellant that the Surveyor was deputed to assess the claim for Rs. 1,68,168/-. However, the said amount has not been paid because, according to them the licence was fake.

WE have heard the learned Counsel Mr. Sushil Kukreja and Mr. Rajiv Jeevan for the parties. Mr. Kukreja learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver did not possess valid driving licence. No doubt, the licence was bearing signature and stamp of the Registration and Licencing Authority, Kalpa (Kinnaur) H.P, but the same was issued by the Registration and Licencing Authority Kalpa (Kinnaur) on the basis of the licence issued by the Licencing Authority, Guwahati (Assam). The learned Counsel has relied upon some letter dated 18.5.92 which has been filed by the appellant with its reply that no such licence was issued by the Registration and Licencing Authority Guwahati (Assam). Such a letter in fact has been issued by some District Transport Officer, Guwahati (Assam) and not by the Registration and Licencing Authority, Guwahati (Assam). Since the letter is not from the proper authority, it cannot advance the case of appellant and such a letter cannot be relied upon. In such circumstances, the findings given by the District Forum that the licence issued by the Registration and Licencing Authority, Kalpa (Kinnaur) is genuine and is not a fake licence.

NEXT submission made by Mr. Sushil Kukreja, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle has been used by the complainant for commercial purposes and hence is not a ''Consumer''. This contention has been rightly rejected by the District Forum as such an objection is not available as the complainant has hired the services of Insurance Company for consideration in terms of the contract and his case squarely falls under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no force in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.