M R H Associates vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

THE factual matrix of this case which are relevant for its disposal are that the complainant/petitioner herein being the owner of the Eicher Truck (Model 2010) bearing Registration No.PB -65 -K -9096 got the same insured from respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 Insurance Co. for the Insured Declared Value (IDV) of Rs.8,88,800/ - on payment of a premium of Rs.23,030/ - for the period from 1.6.2011 to 31.5.2012. During the period of policy, the said vehicle met with an accident in the early hours of 5.7.2011 and was badly damaged. The vehicle was taken to garage for repairs which gave an estimate of Rs.7.5 lakhs approximately. A claim was accordingly lodged by the petitioner with the respondent/opposite party Insurance Co. for making good the loss but the OP Insurance Co. repudiated the claim on the ground that Sukhwinder Singh S/o Surjan Singh, Driver who was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time when it met with the accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Alleging this as a deficiency in service, the petitioner/complainant knocked the door of the consumer forum by filing a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before the District Forum for directing the OPs to pay claim of Rs.7,50,000/ - along with compensation for mental agony and harassment and interest on the amounts from the date of the accident till realization.

ON notice, the OPs appeared and filed their written statement. The OP No.1 Insurance Co. while accepting the issuance of the insurance policy in question and the accident taking place during the period of the policy, submitted that the petitioner/complainant had produced the driving licence bearing No.3678/R/97 of Sukhwinder Singh, Driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. However, on verification of the said driving licence through an investigator, it was found that the driving licence was not originally issued in the name of Sukhwinder Singh and this fact was brought to the notice of the complainant/petitioner vide letter dated 5.4.2012 seeking its comments but there was no reply in spite of reminders and in the circumstances, the OP Insurance Co. repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 22.2.2013. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, the OP Insurance Co. prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Opposite party No.2/Respondent No.2 herein in its written version stated that the driving licence in question as per its record was issued in favour of one Kulwant Singh S/o Nachhattar Singh R/o Village Ghudhar, Dist. Patiala for Scooter/LTV/MTV/HTV only for the period from 10.9.1997 to 9.9.2000. It was further stated in the written statement that this licence had been renewed on three occasions in the name of Sukhwinder Singh S/o Surjan Singh R/o Village Kartarpur, Tehsil and Dist. Patiala, firstly, for the period from 24.9.2003 to 23.9.2006 and second time for the period from 2.1.2007 to 1.1.2010 and third time for the period from 6.1.2010 to 5.1.2013 vide renewal No.42355/R/10. It was also clarified that the said driving licence was not found to have been renewed by the office of OP No.2/Respondent No.2 on 21.9.2000. Opposite party No.2, therefore, submitted that there was neither any deficiency in service on its part nor did it indulge in unfair trade practice and as such it was pleaded that the complaint against OP No.2 Authority be dismissed.

ON appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties before it, the District Forum dismissed the complaint against OP No.2, i.e., the Licensing Authority (MV), Patiala but allowed the same against OP -1/petitioner Insurance Co. in terms of the following directions: - "(a) To settle the claim of the complainant on ''non -standard basis'' on amount assessed by the surveyor in his report (annexure R -9); (b) To pay Rs.10,000/ - on account of deficiency in service; (c) To pay Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation;

Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed by the OP Insurance Co. before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (''State Commission'' for short), U.T. Chandigarh which was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 1.4.2014. It also set aside the order of the District Forum while allowing the appeal filed by OP Insurance Co. It is against this order of the State Commission that the petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition before this Commission.

WE may note from the impugned order that before reversing the order of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner, the State Commission has considered in detail the evidence adduced by the parties regarding the legality of the driving licence held by Sukhwinder Singh, Driver of the vehicle who was driving it at the relevant time. The State Commission has recorded reasons for its finding in paras 18 and 19 which may be reproduced thus: - "18. No doubt, in paragraph number 12 of the impugned order, the District Forum recorded that from the details, tendered by Opposite Party No.1, as well as, contained in the written version, of Opposite Party No.2, it could not be conclusively held that the driving licence, which was produced for renewal, did not actually belong to Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Surjan Singh, for the reason, that the Opposite Parties failed to bring, on record, the name of the Licensing Authority of the driving licence of Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Surjan Singh, which was got renewed from Opposite Party No.2, for the reason that there was a gap of almost six years, when number 3678/R/97 was again issued to the driving licence of Sukhwinder Singh son of Sh. Surjan Singh. This conclusion recorded by the District Forum, in paragraph No.12 is not correct. The complainant produced copy of the driving licence, bearing No.3678/R/97, which according to him was issued, in the name of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh Village Kartarpur, District Patiala, driver of the vehicle, at the relevant time. Since, the original record with regard to the driving licence, in question, was produced, in this Commission, as also the statement of Sh. Sampuran Singh, Junior Assistant O/o the District Transport Officer, Patiala, was recorded during the course of appeal, and on the basis of the same (original record), it was proved that the same (driving licence) was originally issued, in the name of Sh. Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Nachhattar Singh, Village, Ghudhar, District Patiala, and not in the name of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh Village Kartarpur, District Patiala, any further renewal, of the same, in his (Sh. Sukhwinder Singh) favour, did not make the same (driving licence) valid and effective. The District Forum did not properly appreciate the evidence, on record, as a result whereof, it fell into a grave error, in holding that Opposite Party No.1 failed to prove that the driving licence, in question, was fake.

The District Forum, directed Opposite Party No.1, to settle the claim of the complainant, on non -standard basis. Once the driving licence, in question, was found to be fake, and further renewals of the same, in favour of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Surjan Singh Village Kartarpur, District Patiala, driver, did not make it valid and effective, it amounted to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, and the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1, even could not be directed to settle the claim of the complainant, on non -standard basis. The District Forum was wrong, in directing Opposite Party No.1, to settle the claim of the complainant, on non -standard basis. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being perverse are reversed".

THE view taken by the State Commission is correct and as per the settled position of law in that if the driver of the vehicle is not holding a valid and effective licence for driving the vehicle in question, it shall be a serious violation of the statutory requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act as also the conditions of the insurance policy which would vitiate the contract of insurance and as such the insurance company would be entitled to repudiate the claim. The Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Vs. Kamla and Ors., 2001 4 SCC 342 has held that no Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake licence and transform a fake licence as genuine. The relevant observations of the Apex Court may be produced thus: - "12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any Licensing Authority to "renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry". No Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine".

SINCE the driving licence in question was found to be fake and as such was not a valid and effective licence, it was absolutely wrong on the part of the District Forum to have directed the Insurance Co. (OP -1) to settle the claim of the complainant even on non -standard basis because absence of valid and effective licence amounted to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the terms of the insurance policy.

IF the petitioner believed or had been made to believe that the Driver of the vehicle Sukhwinder Singh held a valid and effective licence and the testimony of the District Transport Officer/respondent No.2 was suspicious or not trustworthy, the petitioner should have cross -examined the driver Sukhwinder Singh to support its submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner did not cross -examine the driver Sukhwinder Singh in this regard with reference to the testimony of the official of the office of respondent No.2. In view of this, we do not find any basis which would call for or justify our interference with the impugned order which is in line with the view taken by the Apex Court and this Commission. The District Forum obviously erred gravely in directing the OP Insurance Co. to settle the claim even on non -standard basis because in the absence of valid and effective licence by the Driver at the time of driving the vehicle involved in the accident, the OP Insurance Co. was fully justified to repudiate the claim of the petitioner. We, therefore, dismiss the revision petition at the threshold but with no order as to costs.