NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Through Its Regional Manager Jeevan Bharti Building, 5th Floor, 124, Connaught Circus
New Delhi-110001                                             ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                   Versus    
POSHU RAM @ SESH RAM
S/o. Sh.Tulsi Ram R/o. Vill. & P.O. Soronala, Sainj Sub Tehsil Sainj,
Kulu
H.P                                                                    ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:    
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
     HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA,MEMBER

Dated : 19 Sep 2016

1.       This Revision Petition by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 29.10.2008, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 517 of 2007.  By the impugned order, while partly allowing the Appeal, preferred by the Complainant, and reversing the order dated 03.09.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Kullu (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 85 of 2007, the State Commission has directed that the claim, preferred by the Complainant for the loss suffered by him on account of the accident of the insured vehicle, which took place on 01.08.2006, should be settled on non-standard basis.  Accordingly, the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,52,975/- to the Complainant.  Additionally, the State Commission has also directed that the Complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 07.06.2007, till the date of deposit/payment, whichever is earlier.  While holding that the Complainant had not employed a duly licensed driver to drive his vehicle and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner/Opposite Party, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint.

2.       The core issue arising for consideration in the instant case is whether the Insurance Company could repudiate the claim on the short ground that the driver of the subject vehicle, namely, a Tata Specio, was not holding a “light goods vehicle” license but only a “light motor vehicle” license and, therefore, there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy conditions?  Since, in our opinion, the issue is no longer res integra, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts, particularly when the claim preferred by the Complainant, amounting to Rs.2,63,306/-, expended by him on repairs of the vehicle on account of accident on 01.08.2006, had been repudiated on the aforesaid ground.   

3.       Recently, an identical question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 186.  Referring to its earlier decisions, particularly in S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability merely because there was no endorsement to drive a “light commercial/goods vehicle” on otherwise valid driving license to drive “light motor vehicle”.

4.       In view of the said authoritative pronouncement, which, in our view, is on all fours to the facts at hand, and bearing in mind the quantum of the compensation awarded, viz. Rs.1,52,975/-, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction.       

5.       Consequently, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.