The apex consumer commission has dismissed a plea seeking insurance claim of over Rs 11 lakh for a damaged vehicle, wondering how a person can have two driving licences issued by transport authorities of separate states.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(NCDRC) bench, presided by Justice V B Gupta, rejected the revision petition filed by Premier Shield Pvt Ltd against the order passed by Chandigarh State Consumer Commission.
It said "it is not that every order passed by fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when same is based on sound reasoning".
The NCDRC bench, also comprising its member Suresh Chandra, passed the order on a revision petition by the firm, whose vehicle had been damaged and had sought a direction to its insurer Tata-AIG General Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs 11,34,681.
The petitioner had earlier approached a district consumer forum seeking the payment from the insurance company. However, the forum rejected the plea and, thereafter, the firm approached the state commission which upheld the forum's order.
"It is an admitted fact that the driver employed by the petitioner (firm) was having two driving licences at the relevant time. We fail to understand as to how a person can have two different driving licences issued by two different transport authorities at one time," the NCDRC said.
The bench said that in this case there were concurrent findings and facts given by both the fora below.
"Thus, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power...Since the fora below have given cogent reasons in their order, which do not call for any interference nor do they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction," it said.
"....The present revision petition having no merits is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs 10,000," it added.
The firm had told the NCDRC that its vehicle was insured with the insurance company when in November 2009, it met with an accident on Chandigarh-Delhi road.
It said the intimation of the accident was given to the insurance company but the claim was rejected.
Aggrieved by this, the firm approached the district forum seeking a direction to the insurance company to pay Rs 11,34,681 and claimed another driving licence was produced by it.
The insurance company, however, contended before the forum that the licence of the driver, provided by the firm, was not valid and effective on the date of the accident and subsequently, the petitioner sent another driving licence of the driver, issued by another authority.
