RAJESH JAIN vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the order dated 7.02.2008 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 707/2006 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Jain by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner ''s car MP-40C 0251 was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year commencing from 29.6.2003 to 28.6.2004. On 12.7.2003, car met with an accident and report was lodged with the Police Station. OP also conducted inquiry and loss of Rs.1,17,787/- was assessed. Complainant was holding licence which was valid upto 24.1.2020, but after investigation, OP repudiated claim of the complainant on the ground that driving licence of the complainant was not in force on the date of accident. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complainant before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that validity of complainant ''s licence was only upto 21.1.2000 and claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.44,451/- to the complainant along with 6% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was under the bonafide impression that his licence was valid upto 24.1.2020; though, in fact, it was valid only upto 21.1.2000 and in such circumstances, learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint, but learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that licence of the petitioner was valid only upto 21.1.2000, whereas accident took place on 12.7.2003. Thus, it becomes clear that at the time of accident, petitioner was not having valid licence. Learned State Commission has rightly allowed appeal and dismissed complaint as complainant was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident. Merely because petitioner was under an impression that his licence was valid upto 24.1.2020, petitioner cannot get any benefit. Learned State Commission has wrongly mentioned that learned District Forum allowed claim on non-standard basis because perusal of order of District Forum reveals that complaint was not allowed on the basis of non-standard basis. The order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.