LAWS(NCD)-2001-10-91

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRATAP KUMAR DAS

Decided On October 03, 2001
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
PRATAP KUMAR DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the National Insurance Company against the judgment dated 7.8.1999 of the District Forum, Dhenkanal directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- assured under a motor vehicle policy along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date 1.5.1997 till the date of payment. It is not disputed that the Truck bearing No. MP-26d/3876 of the complainant was insured with the present appellant and the policy was valid in-between the dates from 8.10.1996 till 7.10.1997. The vehicle met with an accident on 26.12.1996 near Sapua Project under Rasol P. S. in the District of Dhenkanal. A police case was registered, petitioner submitted the claim form on 1.1.1997. Surveyors were deputed. The complainant repaired the vehicle at a cost of Rs.1,50,000/-. When the claim was not accepted, he filed the case. The case of the Insurance Company is that the driver had no driving licence at the time of accident and the subsequent renewal of the driving licence was fake and fabricated one. The District Forum held that the original Driving Licence bearing No.1658/83 of the driver Kasinath Majhi was valid till 30.8.1994. It also held that the appellant-Insurance Company failed to prove that the subsequent renewal of the Driving Licence No.1658/83 by the Cuttack R. T. A. with effect from 18.5.1995 to 17.6.1998 was an invalid or fake one. It also held that licence authorised the driver to drive a heavy motor vehicle. With this finding the District Forum allowed the claim of the complainant.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company reiterated the same argument with regard to the absence of a licence of the driver. It was strenuously urged that the driving licence was only valid from 30.8.1994 and the accident took place on 26.12.1996. The driver had no driving licence and this being in violation of the terms of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the claim. The learned Counsel referring to the letter of Pratap Kumar Das, Sri Baneswar Patnaik and the statement of the Assistant of the Licensing Authority, Cuttack strenuously urged that these statements are inconsistent with each other and they being different versions by different persons at different time it would be very difficult to arrive at a conclusion whether the renewal of the driving licence was valid. It was further urged that the fees was deposited for renewal on 20.2.1995 and the licence was issued with effect from 18.5.1995 thus this is extremely improbable and, therefore suspicious. Further it was submitted that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim the same having been repudiated by the appellant and the Civil Court is the right Forum to decide the case. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company in order to support his submission relied on several decisions reference of which given in the note of argument.

(3.) We have heard the Counsel for both sides at length. We have also perused the order of the District Forum. The District Forum has elaborately discussed the issue raised in this case and has given a correct approach to the case. On the point of limitation the Forum rightly concluded that the O. J. C. No.3950 of 1998 having been disposed of on 4.5.1999 the complainant approached this Forum after disposal since the matter of settlement of claim before the Hon'ble High Court was not decided but left open and the cause of action continued from 26.12.1996 till 4.5.1999 and, therefore, the case was not barred by limitation. We agree with this finding. So far as absence of a driving licence as on the date of accident is concerned, we must make it very clear that each and every policy of the insurance stipulates that a person shall hold a licence and is not disqualified to hold a licence. In the present case the Insurance Company admitted in the written version that the said Kashinath Majhi had a driving licence which was valid up to 30.8.1994. But it is their case that there was no licence as on the date of accident i. e.26.12.1996, since, this earlier licence was not renewed. At page-2 of the counter the Insurance Company took the plea that the renewal of the driving licence was a fake and fabricated one with an argument that the materials from the R. T. A. Office, Cuttack disclosed that the renewal fee was deposited on 20.2.1995 whereas the driving licence was renewed with effect from 18.5.1995 till 17.6.1998 and, according to the learned Counsel, Asst. of the R. T. O. Office, Cuttack could not explain this consistency. We fail to understand what is the inconsistency. There is no basis for this reasoning. If the fee was deposited in the month of February, 1995 and the driving licence was renewed from 18.5.1995 to 17.6.1998, we fail to understand what is the wrong with such a renewal. A renewal may be doubted if it goes backward from the date of the deposit but there is nothing wrong with the renewal if effected after the date of deposit. Therefore, we hold that the renewal of the driving licence by the R. T. O. , Cuttack was not a fabricated and false one and this has been rightly held by the District Forum with a reasoning which is also acceptable to us.