MRS. RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTTA versus M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 18-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 3 S.C.R. 977 
MRS. RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTIA 
v. 
MIS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2588 OF 2011) 
MARCH 18, 2011 
[Oft I VEER BHANDARI ANO DEE PAK VERMA, JJ] 
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: 
A 
B 
s.12 read with s. 21(b) - Complaint by insured against c 
insurer for reimbursement of damages, caused to the insured 
vehicle in an accident - District Forum .allowed the claim to a 
sum of Rs. 4 lakh .... State Commission reduced the claim to 
Rs. 2, 72, 5171- .--. National Commission;. in revision, setting 
aside the finding of the two fora and holding that the driver 0 
had no valid licence on .the relevant date .... Held: From the 
evidence on record it has been clearly estatJ/ished.that at the 
relevant time the driver had a valid driving licence - Since 
no revision was filed by the insured, against the amount 
allowed by the State Commission, compensation cannot be E 
enhanced beyond that - Though the Act does not contain any 
provision for granting interest, in order to do complete justice, 
invoking provisions of s.34 CPC, the insurer will pay interest 
@ 9% on the amount awarded by State Commission from the 
date of the claim petition till the payment is made - Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 34 - Interest - Constitution of India, 
F 
1950 - Article 142 ;... Motor Vehicles Procedure Manual 
_ (promulgated by Government of West Bengal). 
s .. 21(b) ~ Revisional power of National Commission - In 
· the claim petition filed by insured against insurer both, the G 
,District Forum and the State Commission, after considering 
-the evidence on record, ·recorded a finding that on the date of 
the accident, the driver of the bus was holding a valid licence 
to drive the bus - National Commission set aside the said 
977 
H 
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. , 
A finding and held that the driver had no valid licence on the 
relevant date - Held: Revisional power uls 21(b) can be 
exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error 
appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the 
same be set aside -
In the instant case, there was no 
B jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have 
warranted the National Commission to have taken a different 
view than what was taken by the two Forums - The order of 
National Commission set aside. 
C 
The insured-appellant filed a claim petition uls 12 of 
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that her bus 
which was insured with the respondent company was 
damaged in an accident. She claimed Rs. 5,33,782/- as 
compensation towards the repairs of the bus. The 
insurer besides resisting the claim as exorbitant, 
D contended that on the day of accident the bus driver had 
no valid licence. The District Forum, after considering the 
evidence adduced by the claimant and the court witness, 
namely, the authorized officer of the R.T.O and the 
documentary evidence produced through him, held that 
E the driver was holding a valid licence on the relevant date 
to drive the bus, and allowed Rs.4 lakh as compensation 
to be paid by the insurer. The State Commission upheld 
the finding but, relying on the evidence of the surveyor, 
reduced the compensation to Rs.2,72,517/-. However, 
F the National Commission, in revision, held that the driver 
of the bus was not holding a valid driving licence at the 
relevant point of time, and quashed the orders of the two 
forums. Aggrieved, the insured filed the appeal. 
G 
H 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Motor Vehicles Procedure Manual 
promulgated by the Government of West Bengal lays 
down the procedure to be followed for obtaining a 
duplicate driving licence. In the instant case, the 
RUBI (CHANDRA) DUTTA v. MIS. UNITED INDIA . . 979 
INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
. . 
' 
. 
. 
deposition of the Court witness, namely, the authorized 
A 
officer of the RTA, states that the said' procedure had 
been adopted by head office at the time of issuance of 
duplicate license. In view of the admission .made by him, 
there remains no· doubt that the duplic~tr/ licence was 
issued by tile office after checking the previous 
B 
credentials of the driver and following the normal 
prcv· :dure by the Licensing Authority. On close scrutiny 
. of the licence bearing No. 676/96 issu.ed by Licensing 
. 
. 
' 
. 
Authority, it is found that the noting categorically states 
that the said duplicate license was issued only after c 
"verification from the original". Even if the original
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.