United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Pritam Singh

ADMITTED facts of this case are that the vehicle in question, a Tempo Trax Jeep, bearing registration No. HP-34A-0949 met with an accident on 1.6.2005. It was insured in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs under a valid policy of insurance with the appellant. It is further not in dispute that Mr. Praveen Kumar was the driver of this vehicle at the time of accident.

AS a result of accident in question the vehicle was badly damaged. And to make it roadworthy, respondent spent Rs. 60,000 and asked the appellant to indemnify him. Instead of doing the needful claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver Mr. Praveen Kumar was not licensed to drive the vehicle in question. Reason being that the vehicle was a registered transport vehicle and the licence of the driver did not bear the requisite endorsement to drive such a vehicle. District Forum below had taken note of all the facts, as also decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC)=III (2006) SLT 162 as well as of National Commission in the case of Solartech S-U v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2006) CPJ 69 (NC) has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,000 with 9% interest from the date of institution i.e., 28.6.2006 till payment besides cost of Rs. 2,000. Hence this appeal.

Mr. Bahl, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle in question as per its registration certificate is registered as L.M.V. (TPT). He further submitted that regular instalments of taxes were being paid by the respondent as is evident from the endorsements made in the registration book of the vehicle in question. These are at pages 23 to 28. He also drew our attention to the insurance policy, copy whereof is at page 31 of the complaint file. Licence of Praveen Kumar was also relied upon by Mr. Bahl, photostat copy whereof is at pages 35 to 37 of the complaint filed, which clearly indicates that valid for (illegible) Mcycle/scooter and L.M. Veh. (NTPT). In the face of these proved and admitted facts made out from the record of the case file, decisions of this case need not detain us in the face of the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors. (supra) and of the National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Sohan Singh, Revision Petition No. 982 of 2006 decided on 26.4.2007. So far as case before the National Commission is concerned, it is nearer to the facts of the present case in appeal.

FACED with this situtation Mr. Chandel urged that benefit of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh & Ors., I (2004) SLT 345=I (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=109 (2004) DLT 304 (SC)=(2004) 3 SCC 297, be given to his client. This plea we are unable to accept in the face of the later decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxminarain Dhut, III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC)=IV (2007) SLT 102=II (2007) ACC 28 (SC)=2007 CTJ 455 (SC) CP. In its paragraph 406(1), it has been specifically held that decision in Swaran Singh''s case has no application to the cases other than third party risk and in paragraph 41 High Courts and Commissions have been directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of the position in law as denoted in the judgment. Nothing to the contrary is brought to our notice so as to uphold the order of the District Forum below.

NO other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. As a result of it, the order dated 7.9.2006, passed by District Forum Kullu, in Complaint Case NO. 41/2006, is hereby quashed and set aside and as a consequence of it the complaint filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. NO costs. All interim orders passed from time-to-time shall stand vacated forthwith. Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules. Appeal allowed.