AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-BEING felt aggrieved by the order of the District Forum dismissing her complaint, the complainant has filed this appeal.
THERE is no dispute that the appellant was the registered owner of a passenger bus bearing registration No. ORM-3761. It was comprehensively insured with the respondent-Insurance Company for a period of one year commencing from 8. 8. 2002. On 1. 8. 2003, the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. When the appellant lodged claim with the respondent, it was repudiated on the ground that at the time of accident, the driver (Gagan Barik) had no valid and effective driving licence. The District Forum held that the original driving licence of the driver, on the basis of which renewal licence was issued was fake one and since a fake licence cannot validate the renewal licence, the repudiation of the claim was justified.
It is submitted by Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel that the appellant had no scope or reason to doubt the validity of the licence possessed by her driver.
THERE is no dispute that the Licensing Authority, Bhubaneswar had renewed the driving licence. The original driving licence on the basis of which renewal was done was no doubt a fake one but for such irregularity or illegality, the driver may be responsible. There is nothing on record that the appellant was aware of the fact that the original driving licence was a fale one. In absence of any evidence of connivance between the appellant and the driver, the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefit flowing from the insurance policy. It appears that the respondent deputed a surveyor-cum-loss assessor to assess the damage of the vehicle following the accident. The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 26,800. The appellant has not produced any acceptable evidence that the vehicle was damaged to the extent of Rs. 90,000. The accident took place on 1. 8. 2003. Considering the fact and circumstances and keeping in view the assessment made by the surveyor, we are of the opinion that ends of justice will be met if the appellant is paid a consolidated amount of Rs. 30,000 which would include interest, etc.
FOR the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 30,000 by 20. 5. 2007. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.