SAT PAL vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''State Commission ''), according to which, the appeal filed by the present respondent, the Oriental Insurance Company against the present petitioner-cum-complainant Satpal, against the order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as ''District Forum '') was accepted and the complaint was dismissed. The District Forum vide their aforesaid order had accepted the complaint and directed the respondent-opposite party to pay Rs. 65,915/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 06.09.2005 till realization. The petition was dismissed in default for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on 19.11.2012 but it was ordered to be restored vide order dated 01.02.2013.

THE brief facts of the case are that an Eicher Canter bearing registration No. HR-65-0935 of the complainant-petitioner was insured with the respondent/opposite party for the period 29.3.2004 to 28.5.2005. The said vehicle met with an accident on 10.7.2004 and a claim was lodged with the insurance company but the said claim was repudiated by the company vide letter dated 18.5.2005 on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle Jai Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving license. The District Forum however, came to the conclusion that the cause of accident was due to the fault of the other truck driver. It also held that the licence granted for scooter/Motor-cycle/car/jeep shall be considered to be driving license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). The District Forum relied on the ruling in 1(2003)ACC 114 in support of this contention. The District Forum directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 65,915/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum. However, the State Commission stated in their order that Jai Kumar driver was holding a LMV driving license at the time of accident, but he was driving a MTV vehicle i.e. goods carrier transport vehicle. There was no specific endorsement on his driving license to drive MTV vehicle, as required under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The State Commission accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order and hence dismissed the complaint. At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain the delay of 162 days in filing the present revision petition. He has drawn our attention to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, saying that the counsel for the petitioner had developed sudden eye problem, due to which he was required to undergo urgent eye surgery on 24.09.2011 and after that, he was advised rest for 2-3 months. The delay in filing the revision petition was due to ill-health of the counsel.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It is quite obvious that the petition has been filed after delay of 162 days and no cogent and convincing explanation has been given for the delay in filing the petition. Even if, it is accepted that the counsel for the petitioner was advised 2-3 months of rest after eye surgery, even then the delay is for more than five months and there is no valid reason for condoning the same. Moreover, vide order dated 26.7.2012, the counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to place on record documents in support of application for condonation of delay as well as certified copy of driving license of the driver, but no such documents were filed. The petition was dismissed on 19.11.2012 for non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel. However, in the interest of justice, the petition was ordered to be restored vide order dated 01.02.2013, but in overall analysis, the petitioner does not seem to be serious about pursuing his petition. Further, it has been amply made clear by the State Commission that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have valid license for driving that type of vehicle.

IN the light of these facts, there does not appear to be any solid ground to modify the order of the State Commission in any form. The petition is therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld with no order as to costs.