SOHAN SINGH vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

-THIS is an appeal by the complainant against the impugned order of the District Forum dated 22. 11. 2001 by which his complaint was dismissed. Brief facts may be noticed: complainant was the owner of TATA-709 vehicle. He got the same comprehensively insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 3. 9. 1997 which was valid upto 2. 9. 1998. Unfortunately, that vehicle met with an accident with another truck on 26. 8. 1998 and was badly damaged. Complainant lodged claim with the Insurance Company for loss to the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 65,000 and had annexed the bills of repairs incurred by the complainant for carrying out the repairs. However, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that at the relevant time the vehicle was not being driven by a driver having valid driving licence. This led the complainant to file a complaint before the District Forum which has been dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

IT may be observed here that at the relevant time the truck was being driven by Manjit Singh driver who had been employed by the complainant. He held a driving licence No. 17582/94 purporting to have been issued by Licensing Authority, Guwahati. This licence was produced as Ex. C-4 before the District Forum. It was found by the District Forum on the basis of the report produced by the Insurance Company that the District Transport Officer, District Transport Office, East Zone Kamrup, Guwahati had reported that the driving licence No. 17582/94/guwahati had not been issued by that office as per the record. The licence produce by the appellant of the driver Manjit Singh was issued by the Licensing Authority, East Zone Kamrup, Guwahati. In view of the above, we will take it that the driving licence of the driver was not a genuine one. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that even if the driving licence is fake there is nothing on the record to show that lack of the driving skill of the driver was the fundamental cause of accident. For this argument, primary reliance is placed on the observations in the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. , I (2004) SLT 345=109 (2004) DLT 304 (SC)=i (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=2004 ACJ 1 (SC ). Whether the observations in Swaran Singh''s case applied only qua ''the third party'' or ''own damage'' was considered by the National Commission in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sant Kumar Goyal, I (2005) CPJ 79 (NC)=2005 (1) CPR 45 as also in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kishan Bhai, I (2005) CPJ 81 (NC), where it was held that the observations of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Swaran Singh would apply even to ''own damage'' case. Following those two judgments of the National Commission this Commission had also taken a similar view in Appeal No. 1315 of 2000 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mehardeen, decided on 9. 9. 2005 reported as 2006 CON. LT 57. However, very recently the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC)=ii (2007) ACC 28 (SC)=iv (2007) SLT 102=jt 2007 (4) SC 169, after detail discussion has held that the observations made in Swaran Singh''s case (supra) would apply only to qua ''third party'' claim and not qua ''own damage''. All judgments taking contrary view of any High Court or Fora under the Consumer Protection Act were set aside.

We had also considered the similar point in Appeal No. 1194 of 2001, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rachpal Kaur, decided on 14. 5. 2007. In the said case in view of the judgment in Laxmi Narain Dhut''s case (supra) it was held that the observations made in Swaran Singh''s case (supra) would only apply to ''third party damage'' and not to ''own damage''. Present case is of ''own damage''.

IN view of what has been observed above, we do not find any case for interference with the order of the District Forum dated 22. 11. 2001. Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.