New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs AKHERAJ LUNIA

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 14.6.1995 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur in their Case No. 310/95, wherein the District Forum has directed the respondent to pay to the appellant an amount of Rs. 43,320/- along with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 19.4.1994 for the loss incurred in the accident of the Vehicle No. MOR 8693.

HEARD the arguments of the parties. The main contention of the appellant is that the driving licence of the driver was fake and this has been proved by a copy of the certificate issued by R.T.O., Jhansi wherein it is mentioned that no driving licence was issued in the name of Kameshwar Singh. That the District Forum has committed an error in relying just on the renewed driving licence. They have not said anything regarding the authenticity of the original licence issued from Jhansi. This fact is not disputed that the driver of the vehicle was holding a Licence No. MOR 8693 valid for 30.12.1991 to 31.12.1994 which includes the period for which the vehicle was insured and during which the accident occurred.

A perusal of letter dated 27.10.1994 sent by the Investigator to R.T.O., Jhansi mentions that the particulars of Driving Licence No. 9981 / Jhansi/88 of Shri Kameshwar Singh issued by R.T.O., Jhansi required verification. As such, he requested the R.T.O. to send the details. Same day, R.T.O., Jhansi returned that letter with an endorsement on the backside that no licence of this number has been issued to any person named Kameshwar Singh and the licence is fake. And this is the main issue for consideration.

IN order to evade the liability on the insurance policy duly issued in favour of the complainant, the burden lay heavily on the appellant to prove the exclusion clause i.e. to prove that the licence was fake beyond doubt. The letter of the INvestigator Shri V.K. Mishra dated 27.10.1994 does not mention whether he had sent the original licence also alongwith his letter to the R.T.O., Jhansi for verification. Similarly, the endorsement of R.T.O., Jhansi on the back side of this letter, does not mention whether they examined the original licence of Kameshwar Singh. The endorsement of R.T.O., Jhansi is about Driving Licence No. 9981/R/ JHS/88 written twice in the note, whereas the Driving Licence No. of Kameshwar Singh is 9981/JHS/88. Thus it is doubtful whether original licence of Kameshwar Singh was examined by R.T.O. Office. Similarly the discrepancy in the Driving Licence No. 9981/R/JHS quoted in the note of R.T.O., Jhansi and the actual Driving Licence No. 9981 /JHS of Kameshwar Singh has not been explained. Except this photocopy of the note of R.T.O., Jhansi recorded on the back side of the photocopy of INvestigator''s letter, there is no other evidence on record to prove that the driving licence of the driver is fake. The endorsement of R.T.O., Jhansi as discussed above does not establish that the licence of Kameshwar Singh is fake. The appellants have miserably failed to prove the exclusion clause.

FOR the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the respondent. Appeal dismissed with costs. _____________