New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs K.L. RAWANI

THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the award of Rs. 1,47,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to be calculated from 1.10.1999 till the date of payment under a motor vehicle insurance policy.

COMPLAINANT''s ambassador car bearing Registration No. OR-06-6811 duly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company met with an accident on 10.8.1998 while on road. The period of validity of the insurance policy was in-between the dates 26.3.1998 to 25.3.1999. These facts are not disputed. The main defence of the Insurance Company was the driver Lochan Behera on the date of accident was having a renewal driving licence, and the original one purported to have been issued by the R.T.O., Allahabad was a forged one. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on that ground. The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant. With regard to this aspect of the case as pleaded by the Insurance Company the District Forum in Para-6 of the judgment held that the Insurance Company could not prove that the driving licence No. 9985/ALLD/83 was a forged one. In arriving at such a conclusion the District Forum relied on the letter dated 11.10.1999 written by the Divisional Office, Insurance Company, Allahabad to the R.T.O., Allahabad asking him to send the report as to the genuineness of the above driving licence. There was no reply from the R.T.O., Allahabad to this letter of the Allahabad Divisional Office of the Insurance Company. Therefore in our view the District Forum correctly arrived at the finding that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the driving licence was a fake one. We cannot hold this reasoning given by the District Forum is unacceptable to a common mind.

Therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Misra in this regard. Mr. Misra relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in III (2001) SLT 150=I (2002) ACC 346 (SC)=(2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 342 in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Shimla v. Kamala and Others, to sustain the view that once there is a forgery the same remains null and void for-ever and it cannot acquire legal validity by any process of sanctification whatsoever including renewal by statutory authority. While we do not have any reservation against the proposition laid down by the Apex Court but as mentioned above the fact that the original Driving Licence was a fake one has not been proved. What the District Forum pointed out is the report of this Surveyor that he went to Allahabad and got the information cannot be held itself to prove that the licence was a fake one. In our view if the Surveyor was able to contact the R.T.O. Office at Allahabad nothing prevented the Insurance Company to prove such fact by calling the documents from the said office or examining the witnesses from the office or proving the report correctly through the process of the Court. No importance could be attached to the Surveyor''s version alone without any contemporaneus material from the R.T.O., Allahabad.

MR. Sahu on the other hand has relied on two decisions namely II (2003) SLT 516=I (2003) ACC 611=AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1992 in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and Others and of our High Court reported in 1999 (III) CLR 209 in the case of Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hadiya Gouda and Others. Both the decisions are on the point that an owner of the motor vehicle while engaging a driver if comes across a driving licence of the driver which he does not believe to be a fake or forged one and bona fide believe the same as genuine one and that takes a test that the driver is capable and otherwise fit to drive the vehicle then there is no burden on him to find out the genuineness of the driving licence by verifying the sources of issuance of the driving licence. It has been further held that the owner will be liable and the Insurance Company will be exonerated from the liability if it is proved from their side that in fact the owner of the vehicle who engaged particular driver having the licence had the requisite knowledge of such forged licence, but not in any other case.

EXAMINING the case at hand in the light of the decisions above we have no hesitation to hold that assuming the licence was a fake one the Insurance Company have failed to prove that the complainant in this case had engaged the driver Lochan Behera with the knowledge that he was holding a fake licence. In fact in the present case there has been timely renewal of the licence which was valid till 25.3.1999 when the accident took place. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Insurance Company. Hence the same is dismissed. No cost. The amount be paid within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. Appeal dismissed.