NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. ABDUL KALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by National Insurance Company against the order dated 27.8.2008 of the Rajasthan, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short 'the State Commission'), wherein the order dated 23.6.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota (in short 'the District Forum') has been set aside and the complaint has been allowed. In this revision petition, the respondent has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.11.2013 of this Commission.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the vehicle Tata truck 207 bearing No.RJ.20/G-5056 of the respondent was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company from 12.5.2003 to 11.5.2004. The vehicle met with an accident on 30.8.2003, but the Insurance Company was informed on 12.9.2003. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loss for Rs.1,09,439/-. The FIR was lodged by the cleaner of the truck. It is mentioned in the FIR that the driver Mr. Prabhu Lal S/o Mohan Lal was driving the truck whereas, in the complaint filed by the respondent, it has been mentioned that Mr. Sahib Lal alias Prabhu Lal S/o Mohan Lal was driving the truck at the time of accident. The Insurance Company got independent inquiry done and it was revealed that Mr. Prabhu Lal and Sahib Lal are two different persons. Both are sons of Mohan Lal as Prabhu Lal had no valid driving licence, Complainant made the case that Sahib Lal @ Prabhu Lal was driving the vehicle and a driving licence of Sahib Lal was also produced. The District Forum vide its order dated 23.6.2006 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the vehicle was not being driven by a driver eligible to drive a commercial vehicle. The respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission allowed the appeal by setting aside order of the District Forum and ordered that the Insurance Company would pay 75% of Rs.1.09,449/-, which comes to Rs.82,086.75 to the complainant appellant with interest @9% from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made along with Rs.5000/- as amount of cost of litigation.

(3.) The learned counsel further added that the petitioner, Insurance Company has filed the revision mainly on the ground that the vehicle was not being driven by a person having a valid driving licence at the time of accident which violates the most important condition of the insurance policy. The respondent has also not come with the clean hands as he has tried to mislead the consumer fora by giving the name of the driver as Sahib Lal alias Prabhu Lal whereas there are two persons. The FIR mentioned Prabhu Lal as a driver, who did not have a valid driving licence. The complaint filed by the respondent mentions Sahib Lal @ Prabhu Lal as driver with a driving licence in the name of Sahib Lal. The District Forum has given a clear finding that these are two persons and the vehicle was not being driven by a driver having a valid driving licence to drive commercial vehicle. The learned counsel mentions that the driving licence of Mr. Prabhu Lal was filed before the State Commission at the time of arguments and this licence is valid from 27.04.2004 to 26.04.2007 whereas, the accident took place on 30.8.2003.