KARNAIL SINGH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the original complainant seeks to challenge the order dated 6.10.09 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, the State Commission ) in FA Nos.916 & 936/06. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the First Appeal No. 936/06 filed by the insurance company and dismissed the First Appeal No. 916/06 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation. Consequently the complaint was dismissed.

(2.) The complaint before the District Forum related to non-settlement of an insurance claim to the extent of Rs.2,62,723/- on account of damage to an insured mini truck belonging to the complainant which met with an accident on 4.06.03 and suffered extensive damage. The claim was resisted by the insurance company primarily on the ground that there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, i.e., 4.06.03, his licnece having already expired on 05.03.03 and it was renewed w.e.f. 06.6.03 only. The District Forum repelled the said plea of the insurance company misguided by a decision of the State Commission in complaint case no. 76/98 where the State Commission had itself observed that It is now settled law that repudiation of claim by insurance company on the ground that the driver was not holding valid driving licence is not a valid ground to repudiate the claim and partly allowed the complaint with a direction to the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,62,723/- as insurance claim to the complainant with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of receipt of order failing which it will attract interest @ 12% p.a. Aggrieved by the said finding and order of the State Commission both sides filed appeals. The insurance company filed First Appeal No. 936/06 praying for setting aside the impugned order while the First Appeal No. 916/06 was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation. The State Commission disposed of both the appeals in the above manner.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner and have given our thoughtful consideration to his respective submissions. The present revision petition has been filed after 18 days delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay in filing the revision petition subject to just exceptions.