AJIT PRASAD JAIN vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

THIS revision petition has been filed by the complainant challenging the order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Appeal No.420 of 2008 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the District Forum in Complaint No.541/2005 filed by the petitioner.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant got his truck trolley bearing Regn.No. DH 55 -B/0484 insured from the Bhiwadi office of the respondent/opposite party Insurance Co. for the period from 7.1.2004 to 6.1.2005. On 13.6.2004 at 3.30 a.m., the said vehicle met with an accident at Devli in Tonk District in respect of which an FIR bearing no.98/04 was registered at the local police station on 13.6.2004 and on intimation in this regard, the OP Insurance Co. appointed Shri Vivek Chaturvedi, as Surveyor. The damaged vehicle was brought to Alwar and was got repaired from M/s Rajesh Motors Pvt. Ltd., Alwar and thereafter a claim for Rs.1,51,597/ - was lodged by the petitioner/complainant with the respondent/opposite party Insurance Co. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Co. which led to the filing of the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum claiming an amount ofRs.1,51,597/ - together with interest from the OP Insurance Co.

ON notice, the OP Insurance Co. filed a written statement in which while admitting the insurance of the vehicle undertaken by the OP, the claim of the complainant was contested on the plea that the driver of the vehicle Jamaluddin had produced a fake driving licence. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the Insurance Co. prayed for rejection of the claim filed by the complainant before the District Forum. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions and arguments were heard. On the basis of the pleadings, the District Forum framed issues and after appraising the evidence before it vide its order dated 6.2.2008 came to the conclusion that since the driver Jamaluddin was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Insurance Co. could not be held liable to pay any compensation and as such dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the State Commission which vide its impugned order upheld the decision of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. In these circumstances, the petitioner has now filed the present revision petition against the impugned order of the State Commission.

WE have heard Shri A.K. Roy, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Navdeep Singh, Advocate for the respondents. 7. Admittedly, there were two driving licences held by the driver of the vehicle. It is seen from the version presented by the petitioner himself that the first driving licence which the driver furnished to the police was found to be fake but there was another licence which has now been produced and the same is claimed to be genuine. The main ground on which the learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order is that petitioner hired the driver who had a genuine licence and he had no reason to suspect that it was otherwise. In view of this, learned counsel has contended that both the fora below have adopted altogether erroneous and illegal approach by holding that first driving licence was found to be fake and that the second driving licence produced by the petitioner and accepted by the surveyor during investigation/survey was not worth consideration. In view of this, learned counsel submitted that finding given by the fora below is based on non -appreciation of the relevant aspects of the matter which vitiates the impugned order. He pointed out that during the investigation, the petitioner had informed the surveyor as well as the respondent Insurance Co. vide his letter dated 12.5.2005 that the driving licence issued by the Amritsar Authority and produced by the driver Jamaluddin was wrong and that the copy of the driving licence produced/submitted by the respondents issued by Agra Authority which was valid from 18.8.2003 to 17.8.2006 was a legal and valid licence. He argued that the State Commission ought to have taken into consideration the driving licence issued by the Agra Authority and allowed the appeal of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suffers from this material irregularity and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on the ratio in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Co., 2013 10 SCC 217.. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the concurrent finding of the two foras below and pleaded for dismissal of the revision petition. Learned counsel has also cited the case of Jai Prakash Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 2 CPJ 183 decided by this Commission in support of his contention.

WE have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties. Perusal of the record indicates that driver of the vehicle possessed two driving licences, one issued by Amritsar Authority and the other issued by Agra Authority. Even though the petitioner has admitted that the licence produced by the driver before the police at the time of the FIR which was issued by Amritsar Authority was found to be fake, the petitioner has not placed the details or a copy thereof before us. The District Forum while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner has made the following observations in its order which may be reproduced thus: - "Along with the claim, the complainant has submitted a driving licence which was found to be fake thereafter the complainant submitted another driving licence of driver Jamaluddin issued by the Licensing Officer at Agra the photo copy of which is available on record. It is said that the D/L issued by the Licensing Officer Agra is correct and the surveyor has also admitted it as correct. It is relevant to note that what necessity arose to a person to obtain two driving licenses for the same period? The effect of furnishing D/L issued by the Licensing Authority at Amritsar, means that he is bound by the effect of its being a valid or fake. The D/L issued by the Licensing Authority Agra which has allegedly been found correct by surveyor has been produced after detecting of first D/L as fake. This forum is not inclined to consider the D/L issued by the Licensing Officer Agra which has been found to be correct by Surveyor as the same has been manipulated evidence with afterthought idea. As such this issue is decided in favour of the respondent insurance co.

.According to the contents of the FIR the accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck -trolla. It is also found that the driver Jamaluddin would be held liable for punishment for his said negligence by the concerned criminal court. The respondent insurance company cannot escape its liability in spite of the fact that the accident has been caused due to negligence of driver of truck trolla but as discussed while deciding issue no.1 since the driver Jamaluddin was not holding a valid D/L at the time of accident as such respondent Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation."

THE aforesaid finding of the District Forum has been upheld by the State Commission. Nothing has been placed before us by the petitioner to take a different view. Admittedly, the driver held two driving licences. This act by itself was illegal on his part because holding of two driving licences is prohibited under the law and is an offence. This Commission had an occasion to deal with a similar matter in the case of Jai Prakash Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. where it has been observed "4. Before the State Commission it was urged by the Counsel for the complainant that possessing of two driving licences by a driver may be an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act, but the same is not sufficient to deny the claim of the complainant. When holding of two licences is prohibited under the law and is an offence, we fail to understand as to how and why the same cannot be pressed into service for rejecting the claim since holding of two licences at the same time would not only be in contravention of Rule 6 of the M.V. Act, 1988 but the effect of Section 6 would be that the second driving licence obtained by a person would be invalid for all practical purposes as the same was obtained in contravention of Provision 6 of the said Act. Any other interpretation would be the violation of the provisions of the said Act. Besides this, it was also found that the tanker in question was overloaded in breach of policy conditions which contributed to the accident."

WE have gone through the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation relied on by the counsel for the petitioner but the ratio of this case would not be applicable to the present case because learned counsel for the petitioner admitted during the course of arguments that the petitioner did not conduct any test of the driver to ascertain his competence to drive the vehicle before hiring him. Besides this, if the version put forth by the petitioner is to be believed that at the time of hiring he had seen the licence issued by the Agra Authority which has been found to be valid, it has not been explained as to what prevented the driver to produce the same before the police authority at the time of filing the FIR or what prompted him to file the driving licence issued by the Amritsar Authority which was found to be a fake licence. The petitioner has miserably failed to support his version and as such we do not find any substance in it. One thing, however, is not in doubt and accepted by the parties to the dispute and that is that the driver did possess two driving licences which by itself was an offence being prohibited under the law. In this context, the initial finding of the police that the accident in question occurred due to negligent driving of the driver who had no valid and effective driving licence since his driving licence was found to be fake driving licence is also important and cannot be brushed aside in the absence of evidence to the contrary. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this revision petition which would call for our interference under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under which this revision petition has been filed. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed with the parties bearing their own costs.