NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BALBIR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In nutshell the facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the respondent-complainant who is employed as Assistant Branch Manager (Sales) with the appellant-opposite party Life Insurance Corporation of India posted at Fatehabad, had insured his car Hyundai Santro car bearing registration No.23b/0406 for the period 24.10.2002 to 23.10.2003 under cover note No.31/391294 of Book No.40/05/02/15652, was coming from Bhuna to Fatehabad and when he reached near village Jandli, a Neel cow suddenly came in front of the car as a result of which the front portion of the car struck against the cow resulting in complete damage to the car of the complainant. The complainant gave intimation to the opposite party claiming compensation amount of Rs.60,000 in respect of the cost of the replacement of the parts of the car. The opposite party on receipt of the intimation of the accident had appointed Surveyor Shri Y. K. Kapoor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.32,723. The opposite party repudiated the claim as per letter dated 16.1.2004 on the ground that the complainant did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident as the validity of the licence had expired on 26.4.2003. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite party, the present complaint was filed wherein apart from the cost of replacement of the parts to the tune of Rs.60,000, Rs.10,000 were also claimed on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him besides Rs.5,000 as litigation expenses. The District Forum rejected the stand of the opposite party and quashed the repudiation letter and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.32,723 assessed by the Surveyor after deducting the depreciation amount of Rs.3,272. The deduction of excess clause was held not to be applicable in the present case and Rs.2,000 was awarded on account of mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and Rs.1,000 as cost of the proceedings. The order was to be complied with within six weeks failing which the opposite party was directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till its realisation. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite party.

(2.) None has appeared to argue the matter from the side of the appellant-opposite party at the time of arguments. Learned Counsel representing the respondent-complainant has been heard at length.

(3.) As there was no representation from the side of the appellant-opposite party at the time of arguments, the grounds stated in the memorandum of appeal have been taken into consideration. It is stated therein that the District Forum has not only misread the provisions of law applicable in the present case but has misrepresented the evidence produced on record. Repudiation letter dated 16.1.2004 was justified because the complainant did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident being 30.6.2003 as he had deposited the license fee on 1.7.2003 for renewal with the Licencing Authority while the period of licence had expired on 26.4.2003. In this manner there has been a breach of the provisions of Sec.3 and Sec.15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988) on the part of the complainant. It was further stated that the matter was referred to Insurance Ombudsman which had dismissed the claim as well. The District Forum while accepting the complaint took view that despite the expiry of the validity period of licence it continues to exist unless the holder of the licence is disqualified to hold the same. Support was sought from the observations made in case, Suresh Chandra Dwivedi V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2005 1 CPJ 743. Consequently, it was held that irrespective of expiry of the term of the licence on the date of accident as it was subsequently renewed, it cannot be held that the driver was disqualified to hold a valid driving licence. On the basis of above finding, the above noted amount was awarded. Learned Counsel representing the complainant during the course of arguments has supported the above finding of the District Forum. In addition, he also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Swaran Singh and Ors.,2004 2 RCR 114, wherein it was laid down that mere absence or fakeness or validity of the licence at the time of relevant time are not defences available to the insurer against the insured of third party and non-production of the licence or evidence by the insured cannot be considered as discharge of burden of insurer. Further reference was made to the case , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Kishan Bhai, 2005 1 CPJ 81.