UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. HUKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Petitioner herein) which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 1.10.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in appeal No. 1192/2001 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum and directed the Petitioner to pay Hukam Singh-complainant (Respondent herein) a sum of Rs. 43,144 along with interest @ 9% p.a. and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000. In his complaint before the District Forum, Complainant/Respondent had contended that he had got his tempo bearing registration No. PB-13-F-3975 insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company for the period from 31.1.2000 to 30.1.2001 and had paid the necessary premium. During the validity of the policy on 27.7.2000 while he was going to Chandigarh from Ludhiana in the said tempo which was driven by one Jagat Singh, suddenly a cow came before the tempo and in order to save that cow the driver applied the brake and swerved the tempo to the left side of the road, with the result that the tempo struck against a tree and was totally damaged. A daily diary report was made by the driver of the tempo at police post Vardhman Focal Point, Ludhiana and intimation was also given to the Petitioner. Respondent spent Rs. 82,850 on repairs. Petitioner Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss to whom the Respondent paid Rs. 2,690 and also submitted the necessary bills pertaining to the repairs. However, the claim filed by the Respondent was repudiated by the Petitioner Insurance Company on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle did not have the valid/ required licence to drive the vehicle. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim since the driver had a valid licence to drive the LMV (and the tempo weighing only 5,300 kgs. was an LMV). Respondent again approached the Petitioner to reconsider and indemnify his claim which Petitioner Insurance Company failed to do. Respondent therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay Rs. 82,850 which was spent by him on repairs, Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental torture and agony and Rs. 5,000 as litigation cost.

(2.) Petitioner on being served entered appearance and took the stand that the Petitioner was not liable to reimburse the loss reportedly suffered by the Respondent, as the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle since he had a licence which was valid for LMV whereas the vehicle which he was driving and which was involved in the accident was a commercial/goods carrying vehicle for which a separate endorsement in the driving licence was required. In the absence of having this endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, Respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy as also the Motor Vehicles Act and the claim was rightly repudiated.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint by observing as follows: