Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Dayal Singh

THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'' for brevity) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the ''District Forum'') directing the appellant-O.P. to pay Rs. 18,928 with interest at 9% and Rs. 1,000 as the cost of complaint to the complainant-respondent.

FACTS of the complaint not in dispute are that the complainant-respondent''s vehicle bearing registration No. MP-23-D/5869 comprehensively insured by the O.P. met with an accident near Aurangabad on 15.7.2002 during the currency of the insurance policy. It is alleged that despite submission of the claim form and relevant documents the O.P. did not reimburse the amount of Rs. 90,000 spent on repairs. O.P. in written version has stated the vehicle was being driven by Kuldip having Driving Licence No. 72231 dated 28.10.2002. The said licence has not been produced by the complainant-respondent despite demand. Moreover, the vehicle was being used for a commercial purpose. Therefore, the claim could not be admitted. Loss to the complainant-respondent as reported by the Surveyor is Rs. 18,289. As per Surveyors report, that Kuldeep Singh holding driving licence No. K-78/R/90 was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Learned Counsel for the appellant-O.P. assailed the impugned order on the ground that the District Forum was failed to notice that no person can hold two driving licences at a time. It was also submitted that holding 2 licences is an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated by the O.P. Learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent submitted that the claim could not have been repudiated merely on suspicion. It was also submitted forcefully that the entry regarding the licence in said load challan could have been made by mistake and had no relevance.

IT is seen that the copy of the load challan dated 13.7.2002 issued by Associated Road Carriers clearly mentions the name of driver as Kuldeep, Driving Licence No. 72231. IT is common knowledge that brokers are engaged for obtaining loads for commercial vehicles. Purpose of a load challan is to maintain record for accounting and tracking the vehicles. There is no reason to disbelieve the entries in the load challan which must have been made while deputing the vehicle for loading. IT is also noted that the only entry challenged by the complainant-respondent is regarding the driver''s licence number, while all other details regarding the owner, his address, etc. are admitted. We find ourselves unable to imagine any reason why a wrong licence number should be entered by the broker. Motor Vehicles Act clearly lays down that no person can hold two driving licences at the same time. In the present instance we are convinced that the driver of the said vehicle was holding 2 different licences in clear contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also obvious that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Therefore, the appellant-O.P. cannot be blamed for any deficiency.

IN view of the above facts and the material on record the appeal succeeds. Impugned order is set aside. Complainant-respondent shall bear the cost of appeal and also pay Rs. 2,000 as cost of appeal as well as that of the complaint to the appellant-O.P. Appeal allowed.