UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. RAVINDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where respondent / complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant was the owner of truck, which was insured with the appellant at the relevant time, which met with an accident on 15.5.1991. The matter was reported to the Police as also the appellant. The appellant appointed a Surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs. 64,721 but despite this when the case was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission. During the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, was not having a valid driving licence. The State Commission, after hearing both the parties and keeping in view the report of the Surveyor as also the finding of the driving licence returned by M.A.C.T., directed the appellant to pay Rs. 64,721 to the respondent / complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.5.1991 as also cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not disputed, hence are not being reiterated. State Commission has relied upon the finding returned by the M.A.C.T. where the matter was decided against the Insurance Company. In any case, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in several judgments that where the driver was not having a valid licence and it was within the knowledge of the owner, only then it will amount to violation of Terms of the Policy. In the present case, factum of valid licence or otherwise has not been proved by the appellant, hence the Insurance Company cannot take advantage of this fact. In view of the settled position of law, we find that the ground of repudiation does not stand scrutiny which point has been gone into at length by the State Commission, hence we see that repudiation was not in order and State Commission was correct in granting Rs. 64,721 as compensation to the respondent/complainant as assessed by the Surveyor. However, we find that the interest granted @18% p.a. was on the high side which is reduced to 12% p.a. from the date of two months after the report of the Surveyor along with cost already awarded by State Commission, ordered accordingly. The appellant is directed to pay the decreed amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. and cost of Rs. 1,000 in above terms within a period of 4 weeks, failing which the respondent/complainant shall be free to proceed under Section 25/Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.