WORLDLINK FINANCE LTD Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question arising in this appeal is as to the liability of the Insurance Company when the insured vehicle was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence Mitsubishi bus belonging to M/s. World link Finance Ltd. was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for the period 9.3.1990 to 8.3.1991. The bus was given by the complainant under hire-purchase to one Paul Singh. The bus met with an accident on 12.8.1990 and according to the complainant, the loss suffered amounting to Rs; 1,96,000/-. Claim made to the Insurance Company was repudiated on the ground that the insured had committed a breach of the terms of the policy inasmuch as the vehicle was allowed to be driven by a person whose driving licence upon verification was found to be fake. The matter was entrusted by the Insurance Company to M/s. Associate Surveyors and Consultants who, on enquiry from the Licencing Authority, Sagar, reported vide their communication dated 19/ 12.4.1993 that Driving Licence No.6415/20 Badge No.6/88 purporting to have been issued by the Licencing Authority, Sagar had never been issued and driving licence produced was, therefore, fake. On the basis of the said report, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. The case of the complainant was, (a) that the said licence had been duly renewed by the concerned Authority of Jammu and in any case, at the time of employing the driver of the vehicle he produced a driving licence and had a clean driving record of eight preceding years and he was employed under the bana fide belief that the licence must be genuine; (b) that the Insurance Company had failed to settle the claim for a period of nearly two years and this by itself, constituted deficiency in service.

(2.) On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum held that the complainant had failed to prove that the driver had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Nevertheless the Insurance Company was held liable for deficiency in service in causing delay in repudiating the claim. Accordingly, the District Forum awarded Rs.5,000/-as compensation against the Insurance Company besides Rs.1,000/- as costs but in substance, upheld the plea of the Insurance Company that the claim had been repudiated after application of mind. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. A reply has been filed by the respondent Insurance Company We have heard Mr. V. N. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. L. K. Tyagi, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records.

(3.) Mr. V. N. Sharma contended that the report of the Surveyor on the basis of the alleged enquiry from he Licensing Authority had not been formally proved and could not be treated as evidence in the case. It was pointed out that as against the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, no affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent either of the Surveyor who held the enquiry or of a person who is reported to have corresponded with the Surveyor and is supposed to have received the said reply. Mr. Sharma further submitted that at the time of appointment of the driver, the hirer of the vehicle Mr. Paul Singh had examined the driving licence and he had given the appointment to the driver in good faith after exercising reasonable care and caution. The said driver had worked with Paul Singh for a period of two years before the occurrence of the accident. The driver had held die licence for about eight years during which he had not caused any accident.