ORIENTAL INSURANCE Company Limited vs Jai Lal

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jyotiba Phule Nagar in Complaint Case No. 94/1999.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant owns an Eisher tractor Registration No. UP 21 E 9492 alongwith trolley. THE complainant got this tractor insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. This tractor was looted by certain persons near village Sateda for which an F.I.R. was lodged in Police Station Hasanpur on 30.11.1998. No trace of the tractor was found and hence final report was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate by the police on 28.4.1999 which was accepted by him. The complainant put forward his claim alongwith necessary documents. It is further alleged that on the tractor the complainant had taken a loan on account of which a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- was due and the interest is also mounting on this amount. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 3.7.1999. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,89,525/- alongwith 12% per annum interest and Rs. 50,000/- as damages.

The opposite party filed the written version and admitted the insurance of the tractor and its looting. It alleged that the claim has been rightly repudiated. It has further been alleged that the tractor was insured for a sum of Rs. 1,89,000/-. The information of the theft was given to the Branch Office on 7.12.1998 after a lapse of seven days which is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further alleged that the Insurance Company received this information through the Canara Bank. An Investigator Sri D.N. Arora was appointed. It is further alleged that the validity of the policy was from 12.2.1999 to 11.2.2000. The accident took place on 30.11.1999. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any amount. It was further held that the driver did not have a valid licence. The licence was a fictitious one and this fact has been suppressed by the complainant. The claim was repudiated on these grounds.

AFTER considering the case of the parties, the learned District Forum directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,80,049/- alongwith 12% per annum interest. It also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost. Aggrieved against the order of the learned District Forum, the Insurance Company has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Forum.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has been heard at the time of admission on merits of the case without issuing notice to the opposite party. Learned Counsel has argued that the driver of the tractor did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the incident. According to learned Counsel the theft of the tractor was committed while it was being driven by a driver without having a valid licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any damage to the complainant. It has also been argued that the insurance was got done through the Bank. From the perusal of the judgment, it is apparent that before the learned District Forum the copy of the insurance policy was not filed. At page No. 3 in the last para it has been specifically mentioned by the learned District Forum that none of the parties have filed the insurance policy. The learned District Forum has held that there was a valid licence with the driver and the incident took place during the validity of the insurance policy. Even if this assumption, for the sake of arguments, is taken that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time the tractor was looted, then it has no impact on the merits of the case.

IT is also a case of the complainant which has not been disputed by the Insurance Company that the tractor while it was being driven by the driver was looted by some persons on 30.11.1998 for which an FIR was lodged. The police submitted the final report which has been accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thus it is proved on record that the tractor was looted when it was being driven at the time of incident then it becomes immaterial whether the person driving the tractor had a valid licence or not. The question of holding a licence has no nexus between the looting of the tractor. The Insurance Company could not have been absolved of its liability of paying the damages even if the tractor was looted while it was being driven by a valid licence holder. Therefore, this plea of the Insurance Company does not appeal and deserves to be rejected.

THUS in view of what has been discussed above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Order The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed.

Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order.

LET copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.