ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the Opposite Party before the District Forum where the
Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant was dismissed but on an appeal filed
by him, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal.
2. Briefly, the facts of the care are that the complainant had a truck tander which
was insured with the Petitioner for the period from 31.8.98 to 30.8.99. This tanker
met with an accident on 15.10.98. The fact was reported to the Petitioner, who
appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 83,660/-. The Petitioner repudiated
the claim on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. On a
complaint being filed by the complainant, the District Forum after hearing the parties
dismissed the claim but on an appeal filed by the complainant, the State Commission
directed the settlement of the claim on non-standard basis and directed the Petitioner
to pay 75% of the amount assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 90% payable
within two months failing which interest was to go up to 12% p.a.
3. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that report of the investigator
is on record that the original licence was not issued by the Licencing Authority from
Gauhati and its later renewal at Bilaspur (Chattisgarh) is of no consequence. The
State Commission has erred in not taking point in consideration and directing
settlement of claim on non-standard basis. Ld. Counsel drew our attention to a letter
written by the Insurance Investigator to the District Transport Officer. District
Kamrup which has a scribbled note “Returned in original with the information that
9783 No. of D/L was not issued by this office. It has seal of District Transport Office
Gauhati. We are not a little surprised at the complete lack of appreciation on the part
of the Petitioner about the fact that neither the original is on record nor is this
document supported by any affidavit of anyone, leaving us to wonder about the
authenticity or for that matter its admissibility as part of evidence. The document is
neither proved nor supported by any affidavit in the absence of which we cannot take
cognisance of the document what is purports to certain. This being the sole point of
law raised before us, and this Commission not taking cognisance of this document as
a piece of evidence, we find nothing wrong with the order passed by the State
Commission so as to call for our interference.
4. This Revision Petition is dismissed with cost which we fix at Rs. 2,000/-.