UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs GURINDER SINGH

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1019 of 2005 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gurinder Singh by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant ''s/respondent ''s vehicle PB -09 -F -0426 was insured by OP/petitioner. During subsistence of insurance policy, vehicle met with an accident on 6.2.2004, which was driven by Surjit Singh, Complainant intimated to the OP and as per advice of the OP, complainant got his vehicle repaired and spent Rs.1,10,918/ -. Later on, OP repudiated the claim on the ground that at the time of accident son of the complainant was driving the vehicle without any driving licence. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that at the time of accident, vehicle was driven by Gundeep Singh son of the complainant who was not possessing a valid driving licence and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,10,918/ - with 12% p.a. interest and further awarded cost of Rs.250/ -. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

A perusal of record reveals that complainant/respondent Gurinder Singh died during the pendency of appeal before the State Commission, but his LRs were not substituted as this fact was not brought to the notice of the State Commission by the parties. On the same title this revision petition was filed, but when notice was sent to the respondent, it was received back with the postal remarks ''Addressee died '' and after that petitioner moved an application for bringing the LRs on record and his LRs were taken on record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of bringing the fact on record that at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by Gundeep Singh son of the complainant, without any driving licence, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 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. It is not disputed that insured vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of insurance policy and complainant incurred expenses in repair of the vehicle. The core question to be decided in this revision petition is who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

COMPLAINANT submitted in the complaint that at the time of accident, vehicle was driven by Surjit Singh, whereas learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of accident, vehicle was driven by Gundeep Singh son of the complainant. OP in the written statement specifically pleaded that at the time of accident Gundeep Singh was driving the vehicle who was not possessing any valid driving licence. OP filed affidavit of Mr. R.K. Sharma, Asstt. Manager in support of reply in which, it was stated that claim form filled by the complainant was Ex. R -7. Perusal of Ex. R -7 clearly reveals that it was signed by complainant himself in which name of the driver at the time of accident has been shown as Gundeep Singh son of Gurinder Singh. Investigator, National Detective and Consultancy Services also opined that Gundeep Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

LEARNED State Commission observed in paragraph 14 as under: ''''The appellants tendered into evidence claim form Ex.R -7 to prove that in Column No. 3(a) of the Claim Form, the insured had mentioned the name of driver as Mr. Gundeep Singh son of Gurinder Singh but in reply to the complaint, the appellants have not submitted/pleaded that claim form Ex. R -7 was ever submitted by the insured ''''.

Learned State Commission dismissed appeal on the count that petitioner has not submitted/pleaded claim form Ex. R -7 in its reply. No doubt, it has not been specifically mentioned in reply that complainant submitted claim form Ex. R -7, but it has specifically been pleaded that at the time of accident Gundeep Singh was driving the vehicle and in the affidavit filed in support of reply it was specifically pleaded that claim form Ex. R -7 was filled by the complainant. Complainant nowhere has denied in his statement that Form Ex. R -7 does not bear his signatures. Signatures of claim form Ex. R -7 tally with the signatures on affidavit filed by the complainant. If the complainant himself has mentioned in the claim form that at the time of accident Gundeep Singh was driving the vehicle then by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that at the time of accident vehicle was driven by Surjit Singh and learned State Commission and learned District Forum committed error in holding that Surjit Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Admittedly, no driving licence of Gundeep Singh has been produced by the complainant because Gundeep Singh was minor at the time of accident. As vehicle was driven by a minor without holding any driving licence, petitioner is not liable to reimburse any damages to the vehicle.

IN the light of above discussion, we are of the view that learned District forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 5.3.2010 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.1019/05 - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gurinder Singh and order of District Forum dated 23.6.2005 passed in Complaint No. 242/04 - Gurinder Singh Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.