Case: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Prithvi Raj

3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short `the Commission) allowing the First Appeal filed by the appellant before it (the respondent herein). He is hereinafter referred to as the complainant. Before the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the State Commission), the complainant had filed a complaint alleging that a Mini Bus owned by the complainant met with an accident during the period when the Insurance Cover/policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company was in currency. The incident was reported to the Insurance Company but the claim was not settled on the ground that the Driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and operating driving license. The complainant took the stand that there was a renewal of the driving license which was valid and legal and, therefore, the claim could not have been repudiated by the Insurance Company. The State Commission rejected the plea, categorically holding that there was no valid license issued by the R.T.A, Hyderabad, as claimed by the Driver.4. In appeal by the impugned order, a contrary view was taken and it was held that it was accepted, as rightly noted by the State Commission, that the licensing authority at Hyderabad had not issued any license as claimed. Yet, in view of the fact that there was a renewal at Tinsukhia, the claim could not have been refused by the insurance company. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Lehru and Ors. (2003 (3) SCC 338 ) in support of the view.

Court's reasoning:
10. In the instant case, the State Commission has categorically found that the evidence on record clearly established that the licensing authority had not issued any license, as was claimed by the Driver and the respondent. The evidence of Shri A.V.V. Rajan, Junior Assistant of the Office of the Jt. Commissioner & Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad who produced the official records clearly established that no driving license was issued to Shri Ravinder Kumar or Ravinder Singh in order to enable and legally permit him to drive a motor vehicle. There was no cross examination of the said witness. The National Commission also found that there was no defect in the finding recorded by the State Commission in this regard.11. It appears that pursuant to the orders dated 14.07.2005 passed by this Court, the entire amount awarded was deposited in this Court. Since, we have held that the appellant-Insurance Company has no liability, the amount deposited be returned to the appellant-Insurance Company with accrued interest, if any.