CWP1129 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1129 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 24, 2008 United India Insurance Company Limited …Petitioner Versus Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order/award dated 12.10.2007 (P-6), passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh-respondent No. 1, directing the petitioner to settle the claim of Dr. Sanjay Jain-respondent No. 2, holding that the driving licence of Shri Vikram son of Shri Angad Singh should be considered as valid and that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 2,45,000/- less excess clause of Rs. 1,000/- to respondent No. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. Sanjay Jain-respondent No. 2 took a policy of insurance in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No. HR-06H-7976 from the petitioner-company for the period 21.6.2005 to 27.4.2006 (P-1). As per the insurance policy, any person including the CWP1129 of 2008 2 insured, having an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence, were entitled to drive the vehicle. Even a person holding an effective learners’ licence was entitled to drive the vehicle, subject to fulfilment of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. On 12.2.2006, the vehicle of respondent No. 2 met with an accident and a claim was filed by respondent No. 2 with the petitioner- company, claiming that one Shri Vikram son of Shri Angad Singh was driving the vehicle. Alongwith the claim papers, a copy of the driving licence of Shri Vikram was also submitted (P-2). On scrutiny it was found by the petitioner-company that in the driving licence the date of birth of Shri Vikram Singh, driver, was mentioned as 27.12.1986, whereas the driving licence was issued on 3.8.2004. It was, thus, found that on the date of issuance of driving licence, the driver was below 18 years of age. The petitioner-company in order to verify the factual position, took up the matter with the Motor Licensing Authority, Samalkha and thereafter with the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, for providing the information. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint dated 24.8.2007 with the Insurance Ombudsman, Chandigarh-respondent No. 1, requesting for settlement of the claim of his vehicle (P-3). It is apposite to notice that respondent No. 1 is an authority constituted under the provisions of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’), by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 114 of the Insurance Act, 1938, in respect of the States of Punjab, Haryana, H.P., Jammu & Kashmir and Chandigarh. On 10.9.2007, respondent No. 1 issued a notice seeking consent of the petitioner-company and to act as a mediator between respondent No. 2 and the petitioner-company for resolution of the complaint (P-4). On 19.9.2007, the petitioner-company gave its consent to CWP1129 of 2008 3 respondent No. 1 to act as mediator (P-5). On 2.10.2007, the parties appeared before respondent No. 1. The petitioner-company took the stand that the delay in making the claim has occurred in order to verify the licence of the driver because at the time of issuance of driving licence, the age of the driver was 17 years 7 months and 7 days. After hearing the parties, respondent No. 1 passed the following order/award dated 12.10.2007 (P-6):- “5. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I am of the opinion that delay in settlement of the claim on the basis of wrong driving licence is not in order. The insurer should have informed the complainant on the very first day that driving licence was not in order. Moreover, the fault in issuing an incorrect driving licence was that of the licensing Authority and not of the complainant. Even if the driver was under age in 2004, he had crossed the age of 18 years which is eligible age for driving the vehicle at the time of accident in Feb’06. Taking the above facts into consideration I am of the opinion that driving licence should be accepted as valid on the date of accident and the claim is therefore, payable. Since the surveyor had assessed the loss on total loss basis, the insurer should settle the claim on IDV of Rs. 4.5 lakhs. As per surveyor report the salvage value comes to Rs. 2.05 lakhs. This amount should be deducted from Rs. 4.5 lakhs which was IDV and the balance amount Rs. 2.45 lakhs less excess clause of Rs. 1000/- should be paid by the insurer to the complainant by 10.11.07 under intimation to this office.” Mr. D.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once it is admitted by the claimant-respondent no.2 that on the date of issuance of driving licence the driver was less than 18 years of age then CWP1129 of 2008 4 there is no possibility to hold that the driving licence would be considered valid merely because the driver has attained the age of 18 years on the date of accident because such a fortitutous circumstance would not make the driving licence valid. In that regard he has placed reliance on Section 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for brevity 'the Act') which deals with the application for obtaining driving licence and its effect on such a licence. He has further submitted that the petitioner cannot be asked to comply with the award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman in the absence of consent of claimant- respondent no.2 to accept the award in full and final settlement as required under Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that the submissions lack substance. The first submission that the driving licence in question was not in order on the date of its issuance i.e. 3.8.2004 is liable to be rejected. It has not been disputed that the accident has taken place on 12.2.2006 and by that time the holder of driving licence was more than 19 years of age having been born on 27.12.1986. Section 182 of the Act deals only with offences relating to licence and it does not deal with a case where insurer has attained the requisite age by the time the question of validity of the licence has arisen. Moreover, the Insurance Ombusdsman to our mind has rightly adopted the approach of a common may which may not necessarily be the strict legal approach. The basic object of such like agencies is resolution of dispute without going into the niceties of law. We are further of the view that such an order cannot be set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The other argument that the Insurance Ombudsman has not obtained the consent of claimant- respondent no.2 in full and final settlement in terms of Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules does not require any detailed consideration as claimant- respondent no.2 has neither raised any objection to the order passed by the Insurance CWP1129 of 2008 5 Ombudsman nor the order favorable to him has been challenged at any forum . The argument stems from imagination and it does not commend to us. Accordingly both the arguments are rejected. For the reasons afore-mentioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 24, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor/okg