Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs PEDRO FERRAO

THIS is an Appeal against the order of the District Forum, South Goa, dated 5.5.1999, in Complaint No. 42/96. By the aforesaid order the Forum has directed the appellants to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 9.4.1995 onwards till the date of the filing of the complaint, besides cost of Rs. 1,000/-, within 30 days failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of judgment.

THE respondent had complained against the appellants on account of rejection of his claim with regard to damages caused to his vehicle bearing registration number GA-02-T-7252 which had been insured with them. It was the respondent''s case that his vehicle met with an accident on 9.12.1994 at Pirni. One Surveyor of the appellants visited the site of the accident and another Surveyor deputed by the appellants inspected the vehicle, the R.C. Book, the Insurance Certificate, the Tax Book and the driving licence of the driver. But despite the compliance of the formalities required to be completed the claim was not settled by the appellants. THE appellants sought to verify the driver''s licence at the relevant time of the accident in the month of June, 91. Subsequently, on 23.1.1996, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the licence produced by the respondent was not valid on the date of the accident and there was no endorsement on the driving licence of the driver for carrying out hazardous goods. The appellants version was that the claim was negatived because the licence No. P-2748/A/89 of the respondent was found fake by the R.T.O. of Allahabad while another licence produced subsequently was also held not valid on the date of accident. Their further claim was that there was also no endorsement on the licence to carry hazardous goods under the Motor Vehicle Act.

We have gone through the records and considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. We have also perused the impugned order and we find neither fault nor infirmity in the findings correctly arrived at by the learned Forum.

ADMITTEDLY the circumstance of the respondent''s vehicle bearing registration No. GA-02-T-7252 being insured with the appellants on the relevant date, the extent of damages caused to the vehicle consequent upon the accident which were duly assessed by the appellants'' Surveyors as well as the fact of the claim having been timely filed by the respondent before the appellants are not at all in dispute. What is disputed by the appellants is the very genuineness and the validity of the driver''s licence to ply the type of vehicle involved in the accident. In this regard and irrespective of such objection being not available to the appellants in view of this issue being deemed as having been finally set at rest by an early order of this Commission, dated 15.7.1998, in Appeal No. 5/98, whereby the case was remanded back to the Forum for the limited purpose of finding out under what heads the respondent was entitled for compensation and also to quantify the same. The appellants'' contention that the licence bearing No. P-2748/A/89 is a fake one does not appear to be based on facts. Indeed since it was for the insurer to establish the lack of authenticity of the licence there is nothing on record to suggest that the letter of Arvind Dwivedi, dated 29.1.1995, can be regarded for this purposes as a reliable and a conclusive document in the eye of law to substantiate the appellants'' claim. Similarly, as far as the other licence No. PO-638 is concerned we are also satisfied that the same clearly indicates that the respondent''s driver Parshuram Bhimappa Wadanaur was authorised to ply heavy vehicles from 10.6.1992 when, admittedly, the accident occurred on 9.12.1994. Further the licence also shows that it was initially issued on 6.6.1990, endorsed for heavy goods vehicles on 10.6.1992 and revalidated from 23.6.1995 to 22.6.1998. This being the position, it is evident that there is no question of the appellants'' claiming that, at the time of the accident, the respondent''s driver was plying the insured vehicle without a valid and effective licence.

ON the other hand there is also no material to support the appellant''s other contention that, on the relevant day, the vehicle was carrying hazardous substance for which it was not authorised. Indeed, admittedly, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was transporting diesel and there is nothing on record to prove that diesel has been classified as hazardous substance. Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the respondent, has produced before us at the time of real submissions a list of substances classified as hazardous and toxible chemicals (Table 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989) and we did not find diesel included among such substances. It follows, therefore, that the appellants seem to have unduly repudiated the respondent''s justified claim for damages after a grossly inordinate delay in negativing the same in spite of being in possession of all the relevant bills and other documents which were required to favourably adjudicate the respondent''s claim. The learned Forum was, therefore, right in holding that such delay and rejection was certainly amounting to deficiency in service for which the respondent was entitled to be adequately compensated. The finding need not be disturbed. We are thus of the opinion that there is no merit in this Appeal as the learned Forum has properly adverted to the relevant material available on record while granting to the respondent the relief sought for in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 3,000/-. Order accordingly. Appeal dismissed with costs.