NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AB GAFFAR PANDITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the State Consumers Protection Commission, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) dated 11 -7 -2001 in Complaint No. 90 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the respondent was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,08,500/ - for the tanker and Rs. 1,25,211 / - for the diesel kept inside with 9% interest per annum. The facts of the case are as follows: On 23 -10 -1997, respondents tanker bearing registration no. JK01 -5592 containing diesel met with an accident on Jammu -Srinagar Highway at Khuninalla. The tanker was completely damaged and the diesel wasted. Both the tanker and stock of diesel had insurance cover to the tune of Rs. 4.50 lakhs and Rs. 1,25,221/ - respectively. The respondent informed the Divisional Office of the Insurance Company i.e. National Insurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant). On intimation, the appellant appointed surveyor to verify the incident. Later Surveyors were appointed to assess the quantum of loss. The loss was assessed at Rs. 3,08,500/ and Rs. 1,25,221/ - for the diesel. The Divisional Office approved the claim as assessed by the surveyors and sent it to the Regional Office. The Regional Office made certain queries relating to validity of the driving license of the driver about which survey report was silent. The claim was later forwarded to the Head Office. According to the appellant, the surveyors could not verify the validity of the driving license as relevant records of the Jammu Regional Transport Office had been seized by the Vigilance Organization in connection with some investigation. It may be mentioned that the driver of the tanker Gull Mohammad had died in the accident on the spot. As the claim remained pending, the respondent filed complaint before the Commission.

(2.) THE appellant in its response before the Commission did not challenge that the tanker and the diesel was covered under an insurance policy. It also did not challenge the factum of accident or the quantum of loss as assessed by the surveyors. It, however, took the stand that as the driver did not hold a valid license, the respondent was not entitled to any indemnity or compensation. In support of its case, it produced a certificate from the Hyderabad Licensing Authority stating that no license 'No. G/1108/Hyd/80 dated 16 -4 -1980 had been issued to any Gull Mohammad. According to the respondent, the State Licensing Authority, Jammu on 10 -6 -1983 renewed the original license after due enquiry. The respondent produced certificate from the Licensing Authority Jammu to that effect and also examined one Hafizur -ur -Rahman, an officer of Regional Transport Office Jammu who deposed that the license issued by the Hyderabad Licensing Authority to Gull Mohammad had been countersigned for heavy motor vehicles by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Jammu after confirming first that the license was genuine and then renewed it vide no. 366091/MVB/RTO Jammu, valid up to 7th November, 1998. The respondent thus took the stand that the license having been renewed by a competent authority, its validity can not be disputed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the appellant, a fake license can not be transformed into a valid license by so -called renewal even by a competent authority. The Commission accepted the stand of the respondent placing reliance on aforementioned certificate of the Hyderabad Licensing Authority. The Commission also accepted the respondents case that a fake license is always fake and renewal can not transform it into a valid license. The Commission observed that the contract of insurance inter -alia envisages that the vehicle shall be allowed to be run by a driver having valid license. It, however, took the view that unless breach of such a condition is intentional or with knowledge that the person allowed to drive the vehicle did not hold a valid license, the owner can not be denied compensation under the contract of insurance. Holding that the respondent was not guilty of such breach of contract, he allowed compensation as mentioned above.