UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., vs INDRA GUPTA

THIS revision by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 23.10.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttaranchal, Dehradun dismissing appeal against the order dated 4.6.2002 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to pay Rs.34,657/-to the respondent/complainant.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Truck bearing registration No.UP-07D-0169 owned by the respondent was insured with the petitioner for the period from 1.6.1999 to }1.5.2000. On 29.11.1999 around 7 p.m. when the truck reached Village Biwipur, a tanker bearing registration No.HR-39-3609 coming from opposite direction collided with it as a result whereof truck was badly damaged and driver also died at the spot. On being informed of , accident on 2.12.1999, the petitioner appointed surveyors. On claim not being settled, alleging deficiency in service, the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. Truck having been insured with the petitioner and it having met with accident on 20.11.1999 was not disputed. However, it was alleged that pursuant to the last reminder dated 21.3.2000, the respondent by the letter dated 24.3.2000 informed that the name of driver on the truck was Sharafat and his driving licence no. was 17551. In pursuance of the letter dated 24.3.2000 sent for verification of said licence by the petitioner, the Licensing Authority, Haridwar informed that driving licence No. 17551 was issued in the name of Mohd. Salim s/o Allah Rakha and it was valid upto 15.9.2001, Claim made was, thus repudiated on ground of Sharafat not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was further alleged that Sanjay Gupta was appointed as preliminary surveyor while Mohit Aggarwal as final surveyor. Despite repeated requests, the respondent did not make available the driving licence to the surveyors. District Forum allowed the complaint in the manner noticed above and appeal by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. Submission advanced by Shri A.K. De for petitioner was that as intimated by the respondent by the letter dated 24.3.2000 (copy at p-12). Sharafat was the driver on the truck at the time of accident and his driving licence no. was 17551. Petitioner Insurance company moved the licensing Authority, Haridwar by writing communication dated 24.3.2000 (copy at p-14) and the Authority returned that communication with the endorsement dated 25.3.2000 that licence no. 17551 was in the name of Salim, s/o Allah Rakha and it was valid upto 15.1.2001. Sharafat, driver who also died in accident, was not possessing any licence to drive truck and the fora below, thus, acted erroneously in returning the finding that Sharafat was having a valid licence at the relevant time. On the other hand, the contention advanced by Shri B.L. Goel for respondent was that the widow, sons and daughters of Sharafat had filed petition being no.97/2000 before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar wherein respondent was impleaded as respondent no.1, petitioner as respondent no.3, director Manglik Creamics Ltd., as respondent no.2 and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. as respondent no.4. Said petition was allowed by the Tribunal by the order dated 19.12.2001 with direction to respondent no.4 to pay total sum of Rs.2,11,000/- with interest. According to Shri Goel, Tribunal returned the finding that Sharafat was possessing a valid driving licence and on face of that finding, the deceased must be held to be possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Copy of the judgment of Tribunal is placed at pp 25-31. Bare reading of the discussion made under issue no.2 would show that the driving licence of Sharafat was not produced in the proceedings and finding in regard to Sharafat possessing a valid driving licence was recorded considering the statement of respondent examined as a witness as also the probability that no owner would employ a driver not having a valid driving licence. Since award was made only against Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. respondent no.4, it did not hurt the petitioner and it was, thus, not necessary for it to have challenged it before the concerned High Court. In this backdrop, the issue in regard to Sharafat possessing/not possessing a valid driving licence on 29.11.1999 is necessarily to be examined in this case. Decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ramesh Kumar III (2004) CPJ 291 relied upon by Shri Goel is of no help to the respondent. Above award notices that the name of father of Sharafat was Mohd. Yamin. In the endorsement dated 25.3.2000 (at p-14), the name of father of Salim is shown as Allah Rakha. Though in the cross-objections filed before the State Commission by the respondent in para 6, it is alleged that Mohd. Salim was also known by the name of Sharafat but that can hardly be believed as father''s names of both of them were different. It must, thus, follow that Sharafat was not having any driving licence at the time of accident of truck. Surveyor appointed by the petitioner-Insurance company had recommended payment of aforesaid amount of Rs. 34,657/-. Non-holding of licence by Sharafat, driver was apparently in breach of the condition of policy. Claim of the respondent is, therefore, to be settled as non-standard/compromised claim under the Guidelines issued by the petitioner at 75% of the amount recommended by the final surveyor. So, the impugned order needs to be modified only to that extent.

ACCORDINGLY , while partly accepting revision, aforesaid orders passed by fora below are modified to the extent that petitioner will be liable to pay 25992.75 to the respondent. No order to cost.