NATIONAL INSURANCE CO . versus M/S SAJJAN KUMAR AGGARWALLA

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 3 S.C.R. 931 
.. 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO . 
A 
v. 
MIS SAJJAN KUMAR AGGARWALLA 
(Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 2009) 
MARCH 3, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1985: 
c 
Motor accident - Insured vehicle damaged - Claim by 
owner - Repudiated by insurer on the ground that driver had 
no valid licence - HELD: There being factual contradiction 
with regard to driving licence, matter remitted to District Forum 
.. 
to verify necessary data from licensing authority. 
D 
In the instant appeal arising out of a claim petition 
filed by the insured for damage of his car, the question 
for consideration was whether the driving licence, as 
claimed by the insurer, was not issued in the name of the 
person driving the vehicle when the accident took place. 
E 
Allowing the appeal of the insurer and remitting the 
matter to the District Forum, the Court 
< 
HELD: The controversy lies within a very narrow 
compass as to the person to whom D.L. No.1149 was 
F 
issued. According to the information supplied by 
investigator of the appellant-insurance company, the 
license in question was not issued to the person as 
claimed by the owner of the car, but to some one else. In 
G 
the circumstances, the orders of the District Forum, State 
Commission and the National Commission are set aside 
" 
and the matter is remitted to the District Forum to verify 
--
the necessary data by calling for records from the 
931 
H 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A licensing authority. [Para 6) [933-G-H] 
.. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1384 of 2009. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.2006 of the 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi R.P. No. 2874 of 2006. 
S.L. Gupta, AV. Sharma and Goodwill lndeevar for the 
Appellant. 
c 
Rutvik Panda for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
> 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
.. 
D 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the 
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi (in short the 'National Commission'). Challenge before 
the National Commission was to the order dated 25.7.2006 
E 
passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 
Orissa at Cuttack (in short the 'State Commission'). The appeal 
before the State Commission was directed against the order 
passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Angul 
(in short the 'District Forum'). 
F 
3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. 
The respondent filed a complaint alleging that his claim for 
compensation was repudiated without any valid reason. His 
case was that he is owner of Maruti Car No.QR-6/D/0121. The 
G vehicle was the subject matter of insurance with the appellant. 
On 23.2.2001 the vehicle met with an accident in the State of 
Chattisgarh and it was badly damaged. On being informed, 
• 
appellant deputed a Surveyor to conduct spot survey. 
~
According to the claimant there was an agreement that the 
H 
claimant would be paid Rs.1,95,000/- for the damage of the 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. v. SAJJAN KUMAR 
933 
AGGARWALLA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
vehicle. But the appellant repudiated the claim on the ground 
A 
that the driver who was driving the vehicle did not have an 
effective driving license at the time of accident. Before the 
District Forum a copy of the driving license bearing No.1149 
dated 22.7.1999 issued by the licensing authority, Dhenkanal 
was filed by respondent. It was stated that he was issued with 
B 
light motor vehicle license on 22.10.1998 corresponding to 
learning license No.2081. On 1.8.2000 he was issued with 
learning license and was authorized to drive heavy goods 
vehicle and passenger vehicle. Requisition fees has been paid 
and, therefore, the driver had a valid driving license. This plea 
C 
was accepted by the District Forum. 
The State Commission did not accept the appeal of the 
appellant on the ground that in view of the records produced 
by the respondent, there is no basis for repudiating the claim. 
D 
The National Commission by the impugned order held that in 
view of the finding recorded by the State Commission which 
had verified the driving license of the driver Sachidananda 
Nayak, there was no scope for any interference. 
4. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that 
a specific investigation was carried out by the Investigator i.e. 
one Mahesh Kumar Sahu who was appointed to verify the 
licen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.