NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MANOHAR LAL BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.6.2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby appellant/opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 2.12.1996 to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in narrow compass. Respondent had purchased a comprehensive insurance policy in respect of bus No. DL IP 1025 in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the appellant Insurance Company. Policy was valid from 24.11.1994 to 23.11.1995. Bus met with an accident on 2.3.1995 near Beawar and the appellant was informed about the accident on 6.3.1995. Appellant deputed Virendra Kumar Bahl, Surveyor to assess the loss and he submitted the report dated 31.3.1995. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, another Surveyor was deputed by the appellant to carry out final survey and assess the loss and he submitted the report dated 20.8.1995. Respondent had submitted bills for Rs. 5,34,000/- being estimate for the repairs of damaged bus. Claim for amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was alleged to have been cleared by the appellant. When the respondent acceded to accept this amount, the appellant offered payment of only Rs. 1,60,000/-. Ultimately, by the letter dated 2.12.1996, the appellant repudiated the claim made by respondent on the ground that driver of the bus was not possessing a valid licence on the date the accident took place. Thereafter, complaint filed by the respondent was contested by the appellant on identical ground that driving licence was not effective at the time of accident. However, repelling that plea, the State Commission allowed the complaint with the direction noted above.

(3.) Main submission advanced by Mr. Yogesh Malhotra for appellant was that at the time of accident the bus was being driven by Gajanan and though he was issued driving licence on 23.10.1986 but the same was renewed on 7.4.1995 upto 6.4.1998. Since renewal was made after 35 days of the accident, the licence would be deemed to have been renewed from the date of renewal under Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was pointed out that State Commission had mis-quoted the wordings of the relevant clause of policy in the impugned order. An attested copy of the policy in question was also placed on the file. Copy of driving licence (at pp-58-59) would show that though the licence was issued on 23.8.1986 but it was renewed on 7.4.1995 upto 6.4.1998. Impugned order notices the relevant clause of policy thus- 'provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence.'