ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KUMP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur in complaint No. 149/2003 by which the complaint of the complainant -respondent was allowed in the manner that the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,521 within two months to the complainant failing which the appellant would pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the above amount w.e.f. 25.10.2002 and would further pay a sum of Rs. 500 as costs.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances: That the complainant -respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jodhpur on 10.2.2003 inter alia stating that his vehicle Mahendra bearing registration No. RJ 15 G 0382 was got insured with the appellant Insurance Company for the period 10.10.2001 to 9.10.2002 for a sum of Rs. 3,97,000. It was further stated that on 3.9.2002 when the vehicle in question was going on Pokaran -Jaisalmer Road, an army vehicle had caused an accident with the vehicle of the complainant respondent as a result of which the vehicle of the complainant was damaged and for that claim was preferred by the complainant before the office of the appellant but that claim was repudiated by the appellant through letter dated 24.10.2002 on the ground that at the time of accident Chatar Singh who was driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving licence as he was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle and that licence was not valid for driving light transport or commercial vehicle. Thereafter the present complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the appellant on 4.8.2003 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken by them in the repudiation letter dated 24.10.2002. It was further replied that the Surveyor Satendra Singh Yadav appointed by the appellant in his report dated 7.10.2002 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 34,021. Hence, complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Jodhpur through impugned order dated 28.1.2005 had allowed the complaint inter alia holding that the licence in question was valid one as the weight of the vehicle of the complainant was less than 7500 kgs. therefore, the licence of LMV was found valid one. Aggrieved from the said order dated 28.1.2005 passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(3.) IN this appeal the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that when the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle and when the driver of the vehicle was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle, the licence in question could not be treated as a valid licence and thus claim was rightly repudiated by the appellant on the ground of licence and the findings recorded by the District Forum by which claim was decreed could not be sustained as they are wholly erroneous, illegal and perverse one. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed.