ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. RAMDHAN AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was dismissed but on an appeal filed by him, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had a truck tanker which was insured with the petitioner for the period from 31.8.1998 to 30.8.1999. This tanker met with an accident on 15.10.1998. The fact was reported to the petitioner, who appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 83,660/ -. The petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. On a complaint being filed by the complainant, the District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed the claim but on an appeal filed by the complainant, the State Commission directed the settlement of the claim on non -standard basis and directed the petitioner to pay 75% of the amount assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 9% payable within two months failing which interest was to go up to 12% p.a.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that report of the Investigator is on record that the original licence was not issued by the Licensing Authority from Gauhati and its later renewal at Bilaspur (Chattisgarh) is of no consequence. The State Commission has erred in not taking point in consideration and directing settlement of claim on non -standard basis. Learned Counsel drew our attention to a letter written by the Insurance Investigator to the District Transport Officer, District Kamrup which has a scribbled note Returned in original with the information that 9783 No. of D/L was not issued by this office. It has seal of District Transport Office, Gauhati. We are not a little surprised at the complete lack of appreciation on the part of the petitioner about the fact that neither the original is on record nor is this document supported by any affidavit of anyone, leaving us to wonder about the authenticity or for that matter its admissibility as part of evidence. This document is neither proved nor supported by any affidavit in the absence of which we cannot take cognizance of the document what is purported to certain. This being the sole point of law raised before us, and this Commission not taking cognizance of this document as a piece of evidence, we find nothing wrong with the order passed by the State Commission so as to call for our interference. This revision petition is dismissed with cost which we fix at Rs. 2,000/ -. Revision Petition dismissed.