Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 49 (UTT)

Luxmi Devi v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

2004-05-11

K.D.SHAHI, LUXMI SINGH, SURENDRA KUMAR

body2004
JUDGMENT Sri Surendra Kumar, Senior' Member: This is an appeal against the order dated 10.02.2003 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar whereby the complaint of the complainant, Smt. Luxmi Devi was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the truck of the complainant no. UP 04 A- 0013 was insured with the opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs). On 25.06.1999, when the truck was going from Ghaziabad to Khatima, it met with an accident with another truck no. DIL -1548, in which the cabin of the truck was completely damaged. The F.I.R. was lodged by the son of the c;omplainant, the same day and on that date the papers of the truck were valid. She lodged the claim for Rs.80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand) before the insurance company but the claim was repudiated on 16:03.2000. Therefore she filed the complaint. 3. The opposite party filed written statement and alleged that the complaint does not come within the jurisdiction of the Forum because it is related with motor accident. It is alleged that on the date of accident, the driver of the truck was not holding valid driving licence and the complainant did not make the driver of the other truck & its owner, the party to the complaint. Therefore the true facts cannot be ascertained. It is said that the complainant violated the terms of the policy because the driver was not holding valid driving licence. Therefore the claim was rejected. 4. The Learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them dismissed the complaint. 5. Being aggrieved by that order. the. present appeal has beeri filed. 6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The insurance is admitted. There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the truck. The only question is whether the driver was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident or not? The insurance company filed the phot9cOPY of the driving licence of the driver Sh. Suresh Kumar. From this, it• is clear that the driving licence was valid from 23.06.1994 to 22.06.1997 and later on it was renewed from 11.07.2000 to 10.07.2003. Both date of accident i.e. 25.06.1999, the licence of the driver was not valid because it has expired on 22.06.1997 and was renewed on 11.07.2000. 7. The insurance company appointed Sh. Inderjeet as surveyor. From this, it• is clear that the driving licence was valid from 23.06.1994 to 22.06.1997 and later on it was renewed from 11.07.2000 to 10.07.2003. Both date of accident i.e. 25.06.1999, the licence of the driver was not valid because it has expired on 22.06.1997 and was renewed on 11.07.2000. 7. The insurance company appointed Sh. Inderjeet as surveyor. He surveyed the spot on 25.06.1999 and in his report dated 17.07.1999. assessed the loss to the tune of Rs,67,225/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Five). He further assessed the value of salvage as Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand). 8. The Learned Counsel for the complainant referred the ruling reported in 2003 ACJ 1317, National Insurance Co, Ltd. Vs. Manni Singh and others, in which it has been held that the policy provides that either the driver should have licence or he should be competent to hold licence. It was further held that in this cas~ that the insurance company is liable to pay the claim, He further referred the ruling reported in 2000 ACJ 1223, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Mohammed Sab Ali Sab Kaladagi and others, in which the licence of driver of the offending vehicle had expired much before the date of• accident and it was got renewed after the occurrence. Insurcance company disputed its liability on the ground that the driver had no valid licence on the date of accident and the insurance company was held'liable to pay the claim, He also referred the ruling reported in [2001 (43) ALR 85], Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Manju Gupta @,Smt. Laxmi Gupta and others, in which it has been held that unless it is established that it was the insured who had willfully violated the conditions of policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place. the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment debtor. in respect of the liability. It further referred the decision of this Commission reported in 2003 (2) UC 761, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Murli Dhar Aggarwal, in which it has been held that the claimant is entitled to claim even if there is some defect in the licence of the driver. In this case, the ruling of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. It further referred the decision of this Commission reported in 2003 (2) UC 761, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Murli Dhar Aggarwal, in which it has been held that the claimant is entitled to claim even if there is some defect in the licence of the driver. In this case, the ruling of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. Ramdhan Aggarwal reported in 2003 (1) CPJ 204 (NC) was referred, in which it was held that even if there was no valid driving licence, the claim •should have been settled on non-standard basis at 75%. 9. The ruling of B. V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC) and Skandia Insurance-Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan reported in 1987 ACJ 411 (SC) are authorities on the subject, in which it has been held that the claim . should be settled on non-standard basis at 75%. 10. The surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.67,225/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Five). 75% of this amount shall be Rs.50,419/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Only) roughly and therefore the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,419/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Only). Since the insurance company has unnecessarily refused the claim, therefore the complainant is entitled to interest @9% on• this amount from the date of repudiation of the claim, i.e. 16.03.2000 till the date of actual payment. ORDER The appeal is hereby' allowed. The order dated 10.02.2003 is hereby set aside. The insurance company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,419/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Nineteen Only) along with interest @9% payable from 16.03.2000, i.e. date of repudiation of the claim till the date of actual payment. Cost of the appeal shall be easy.