State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionSeema Sharma vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 26 November, 2013H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
                             SHIMLA.

              First Appeal No.215/2013
              Date of Presentation: 16.08.2013
              Date of Decision: 26.11.2013
.................................................................................
Seema Sharma, W/o Sh. Harish Sharma,
R/o C-47, Flat No.10, Vikas Nagar,
Shimla-9, H.P.

                                                                   .......... Appellant

                                            Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla-3, H.P.,
Through its Divisional Manager.


                            .......... Respondent
..........................................................................................

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member

    Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Appellant:  Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral)

                      Appellant         has      assailed        the         order   dated

15.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Forum, Shimla, whereby her complaint, underSection 12of

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been dismissed, by

means of the present appeal, underSection 15of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.2.                    Appellant owned a transport vehicle, which was

insured with the respondent for a sum of `1.40 lacs on the1Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?Seema Sharma vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(F.A. No.215/2013)

________________________________________________________
                         _____


basis of Insured Declared Value. During the validity of the

insurance policy, vehicle met with an accident on 30.03.2008

and was completely damaged.          Intimation of accident was

given to the respondent. When the respondent did not settle

the claim, appellant wrote to the Banking Ombudsman, who

directed the respondent to settle the claim, observing that

the respondent could even repudiate the claim because the

person, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the

accident, possessed two licences. Thereafter, the claim was

repudiated by the respondent and, therefore, the appellant

filed a complaint, underSection 12of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the

respondent to pay the insurance money with interest and

also to pay compensation and costs.3.           Complaint was contested by the respondent on

the ground that Manoj Kumar, who was driving the vehicle at

the relevant time and died in the accident, possessed two

licences and that the licence, upon which reliance had been

placed by the appellant, had been obtained in the year 2003,

when Manoj Kumar was just sixteen years of age and hence,

not even eligible to possess a licence.2Seema Sharma vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(F.A. No.215/2013)

________________________________________________________
                         _____4.           Learned District Forum, vide impugned order,

has held that the licence, which authorised the driver of the

vehicle to drive a transport vehicle, was issued in the year

2003, while year of birth of the driver was 1987 and, hence,

the said licence was invalid. The second licence, which was

obtained in the year 2007, did not authorize the driver to

drive a transport vehicle. With this finding, the complaint

has been dismissed.5.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and gone through the record.6.           Licence, which was relied upon by the appellant

to support her claim that the deceased driver was authorized

to drive the transport vehicle, purports to have been issued

by Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Mathura.

Copy of the licence is Annexure R-3. In this licence, date of

birth of the licence holder is written as 12.10.85. Licence

bears an endorsement made in May, 2006 that the holder was

authorized to drive transport vehicle. The second licence,

which has been produced by the respondent, is Ex OP1. This

is issued by Registration & Licensing Authority (Rural), Shimla

on 25.09.2007 and in this licence, date of birth of the licence

holder is written as 12.10.1987.          The particulars of the3Seema Sharma vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(F.A. No.215/2013)

________________________________________________________
                         _____


person in Ex OP1 and Annexure R-3 are the same.

Photographs also appear to be of the same person.

Respondent also placed on record copy of Matriculation

Examination Certificate of the licence holder, which is Ex

OP2, per which the date of birth of the licence holder is

12.10.87.7.           Undoubtedly, on the basis of the aforesaid

documents, it can be said that the person, who was driving

the vehicle at the relevant time, held two licences and his

date of birth was 12.10.87 and not 12.10.85, as mentioned in

licence, Annexure R-3, issued by Licensing Authority, Motor

Vehicle Department, Mathura and relied upon by the

appellant. This, however, does not mean that the appellant

is guilty of breach of any condition of the policy, the reason

being that the appellant had employed licence holder to

drive the vehicle and the licence, which was shown to her,

was Annexure R-3.8.           Above    stated    position     apart,    endorsement

authorizing the licence holder to drive transport vehicle was

made on 17.05.2006, by which date the licence holder had

become eligible (age-wise) to get a licence. Therefore, in

our considered view, the man on wheel of the accidented4Seema Sharma vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(F.A. No.215/2013)

________________________________________________________
                         _____


vehicle, at the relevant time, possessed a valid licence to

drive a transport vehicle, at least in the bonafide belief of

the appellant, which she can legitimately be presumed to

have formed on the basis of licence, Annexure R-3.9.            Learned      counsel      representing         respondent

submits that learned District Forum obtained a report from

Mathura and as per that report, Annexure RX, licence bearing

No. 2215/MTR/03, valid from 19.02.2003 to 18.02.2023, had

been issued in favour of some Udai Singh, S/o Shri Tej Singh

and not in the name of Manoj Kumar, S/o Virender Sharma,

in whose name Annexure R-3 is issued. The report is issued

by    Assistant   Departmental       Transport     Officer     (Admn.),

Mathura, while licence, Annexure R-3, purports to be issued

by Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Mathura.

Thus, the report, Annexure RX, is irrelevant.10.           As regards Annexure R-3, respondent itself got

its validity verified by approaching one Loss Assessor by the

name of Atul Misra. Said Atul Misra submitted a report given

by Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Mathura,

per which the licence had been issued in the name of Manoj,

S/o Virender Sharma. The particulars of the licence are the

same as those mentioned in report, Annexure R-3.5Seema Sharma vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(F.A. No.215/2013)

________________________________________________________
                         _____11.          Plea that the driver of the vehicle was having

two licences should also not come                 in   the way   of

indemnification of the appellant. Appellant was not aware

that the driver was holding two licences. Of course,Section

6of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits the possession of more

than one driving licence, but the appellant cannot be

penalized for this unlawful act of the holder of licences,

particularly when there is no evidence that she was aware of

this fact.12.          In view of the above stated position, we allow

the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the

learned District Forum, Shimla. Consequently, the complaint

is allowed and the respondent is ordered to pay a sum of

`1.25 lacs, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from

the date of the complaint, to the date of payment of

aforesaid amount of money, by way of insurance money.Instead of directing the respondent to pay `1.40 lacs, for

which sum the vehicle was insured, we have passed the

direction for payment of `1.25 lacs only because appellant

gave a written consent to the surveyor that the amount of

money would be acceptable to her and also for the reason

that probably the consent was taken from the appellant with6Seema Sharma vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.(F.A. No.215/2013)

________________________________________________________
                         _____


the impression that the salvage was to be retained by her.

Further, we direct the respondent to pay `10,000/- as

compensation and `5,000/- on account of costs of litigation.13.          A copy of this order be sent to each of the

parties, free of cost, as per Rules.(Justice Surjit Singh)
                                           President


                                      (Chander Shekhar Sharma)
                                           Member


                                          (Prem Chauhan)
                                             Member
November 26, 2013
DC Dhiman)7