UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DINESH KUMAR AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved against the order dated 16.9.2000 passed by the District Forum, Mayurbhanj in C.D. Case No. 30 of 2000, the opposite party, the United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, at Vivekananda Marg, Balasore, has filed this appeal against the Complainant.

(2.) THE case in brief is that, Dinesh Kumar Agrawalla, the complainant/respondent has insured his truck bearing registration No. OR -11 -8652 with the opposite party/appellant vide policy No. 034006/31/21/737/98. Said truck loaded with rice while was moving on N.H. No. 5, near Sukhupada Bangru Bridge, met with an accident on 18.4.1999. The cabin, dash board and body of the truck was totally damaged. Sri Parthasarathy Roy an empanelled Surveyor of the appellant has assessed the loss at Rs. 1,98,000. Therefore, the complainant/respondent claimed damage of Rs. 1,98,000 from the appellant. But the appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the truck was not having valid licence when he was driving the truck, Driver P.K. Mohanty was a temporary driver. After knowing this, the respondent filed valid driving licence No. 1952/93 of the said driver produced by him before the appellant. Still then, the appellant refused to settle the claim. Therefore, he filed the aforesaid C.D. case for the deficiency of service by the appellant.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the appellant is that though the aforesaid truck belonging to the respondent has been insured as aforesaid with the appellant and it met with an accident on the said date, yet at the time of accident the driver Pradeep Kumar Mohanty had no valid driving licence to drive a heavy vehicle i.e. a truck. As per his driving licence No. 135/85 -86 issued by L.A., Mayurbhanj, he was not authorized to drive heavy transport vehicle. The accident was reported at the Kuliana P.S. where S.D.E. No. 357 dated 18.4.1999 was registered. Though police did not properly enquire into the case yet he seized the aforesaid driving licence which was with the said driver when the accident took place. The respondent had also reported to the appellant in respect to the accident. The respondent, who is the owner of the said truck knowing that the driver Pradeep Kumar Mohanty had no effective/valid driving licence in view of D/L. No. 135 of 85 -86 MBJ only valid up to 25.9.1996, had engaged him to drive the truck for trade and business purpose. Therefore, due to incompetency of said driver there was accident. The respondent with full knowledge that D/L No. 135 of 85 -86 is a fake one, had allowed said Pradeep to drive the said vehicle. Taking into consideration the said driving licence on the strength of which the said driver was driving the commercial vehicle and driving licence verification report, the appellant has turned down the claim of the respondent. Though the owner of the said truck (the respondent) has produced before the appellant another driving licence viz. D/L. No. 1952/93 L.A. Lohardoga (Bihar) valid upto 22.9.1999 in favour of said driver, it was neither seized nor verified by the Kuliana Police. The holding of a second licence by a driver is prohibited under Section 6 of the M.V. Act. In view of this, the appellant had repudiated the claim of the respondent. Thus, the appellant had claimed for dismissal of the C.D. case, it having not caused deficiency in service to the respondent.