National Insurance Co vs M/S Sajjan Kumar Aggarwalla

M/s Sajjan Kumar Aggarwalla ..Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National

Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the

`National Commission'). Challenge before the National Commission was to

the order dated 25.7.2006 passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Orissa at Cuttack (in short the `State Commission'). The

appeal before the State Commission was directed against the order passed

by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Angul (in short the `District

Forum').

3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.

The respondent filed a complaint alleging that his claim for

compensation was repudiated without any valid reason. His case was that he

is owner of Maruti Car No.QR-6/D/0121. The vehicle was the subject

matter of insurance with the appellant. On 23.2.2001 the vehicle met with

an accident in the State of Chattisgarh and it was badly damaged. On being

informed, appellant deputed a Surveyor to conduct spot survey. According

to the claimant there was an agreement that the claimant would be paid

Rs.1,95,000/- for the damage of the vehicle. But the appellant repudiated the

claim on the ground that the driver who was driving the vehicle did not have

an effective driving license at the time of accident. Before the District

Forum a copy of the driving license bearing No.1149 dated 22.7.1999

issued by the licensing authority, Dhenkanal was filed by respondent. It was

stated that he was issued with light motor vehicle license on 22.10.1998

2 corresponding to learning license No.2081. On 1.8.2000 he was issued with

learning license and was authorized to drive heavy goods vehicle and

passenger vehicle. Requisition fees has been paid and, therefore, the driver

had a valid driving license. This plea was accepted by the District Forum.

The State Commission did not accept the appeal of the appellant on

the ground that in view of the records produced by the respondent, there is

no basis for repudiating the claim. The National Commission by the

impugned order held that in view of the finding recorded by the State

Commission which had verified the driving license of the driver

Sachidananda Nayak, there was no scope for any interference.

4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that a specific

investigation was carried out by the Investigator i.e. one Mahesh Kumar

Sahu who was appointed to verify the license in question. The investigator

found that it was in the name of somebody else. Therefore, the District

Forum as well as the State Commission and the National Commission

should not have granted relief to the respondent.

3

5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that

the details supplied by the insured clearly indicated that driver had a valid

driving license.

6. The controversy lies, as noted above, within a very narrow compass

as to the person to whom D.L. No.1149 was issued. According to

respondent it was issued to Sachidananda Nayak. But according to the

information supplied by investigator of the appellant-company the license in

question was issued to one Santosh Kumar Maharana. In view of the

aforesaid background we feel it appropriate to set aside the impugned order

of the District Forum, State Commission and the National Commission and

remit the matter to the District Forum to verify the necessary data by calling

for records from the licensing authority. The parties shall be permitted to

place materials in support of their respective claim.

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

........................................J.

4 (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, March 03, 2009

5