Search in selected Domain

Print this page MANU/CF/0191/2003

III(2003)CPJ185(NC)

|| Email this page

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI Revision Petition No. 2169 of 2002 Decided On: 24.03.2003 Appellants: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Khodil Singh Hon'ble Judges: K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member), Rajyalakshmi Rao and B.K. Taimni, Members Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Vishnu Mehra, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: None Subject: Consumer Acts/Rules/Orders: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 14, 18, 18A and 21 ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member 1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where, alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed by the respondent/ complainant Khodil Singh which was allowed. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed, hence this petition. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant owned a truck which was insured with the petitioner Company. Vehicle was damaged in an accident on 18.7.1990. The incident was reported to the

petitioner, who appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor intimated the cost of repairs at Rs. 30,114.59. The claim was repudiated by the petitioner on the ground that the driver of the truck did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of incident -- driving licence having expired on 18.3.1988, which was not renewed. Complaint came to be filed in District Forum. District Forum after hearing the parties and relying on the judgment of Karnataka State Commission CPR 1995 (1) 603 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 30,114.59 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of submission of the report of the Surveyor and Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission of Jharkhand was dismissed, hence this revision petition. 3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the State Commission is a nullity as it has been signed by two Members only whereas the requirement of law CPA, 1986 is that it must be signed by the President. On merits also it is his case that as per provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, under Section 14, validity of driving licence stays only for 30 days after the expiry of its validity. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the procedure for renewal of licence after expiry of the stated 30 days. Accepted position is that on the date of incident, the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence. The order of both the lower Forums cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, hence need to be set aside. It was also his case that on direction of the Commission 50 per cent of the principal amount was paid to the complainant, which must be restituted to the petitioner. Respondent/complainant proceeded ex parte. remained absent despite notice hence

4. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no doubt that as per record the order passed by the State Commission is signed by two Members, which in view of provision of Section 14-(2A), read along with Sections 18 and 18A, is no order in the eyes of law, hence cannot be sustained. On the merits of the case what we see is, it is not disputed that the driving licence of driver of the truck had expired on 8.3.1988, but it is also true that cause of the damage to the truck was not on account of an accident but damage to the standing truck. In our view driving licence was of no relevance. Relief if any could be claimed under the terms of policy, which has not been examined by any of the two lower Forums at all. In our view they erred in that regard. In view of this fact, the case shall require reexamination de novo. The order of the State Commission cannot be sustained for the reasons given out earlier. This is a fit case which should be remanded to the District Forum to adjudicate on the

claims in terms of Insurance Policy. This case is remanded to the District Forum to adjudicate the claim after giving opportunity to both parties and pass orders following due process of law. 6. No order as to costs.
Print this page

|| Email this page manupatra.com Pvt. Ltd.