New India Assurance Co Ltd vs LALAJIT YADAV

-THIS appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , in short N. I. A. , Rourkela Divisional Office challenging the orders dated 2. 9. 2002 of the District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela, in CD Case No. 40 of 2002 directing the appellant (opposite party) to pay a sum of rupees two lakh (2 lakh) towards the claim amount and Rupees 1,000 towards the cost of litigation to the respondent (complainant ).

THE appellant has challenged the aforesaid order of the District Forum as illegal on the ground that the aforesaid CD case being the second CD case on the same facts and circumstances filed by the complainant after his first CD Case No. 95 of 2001 was rejected on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction by the same District Forum and deciding the claim amount on forged driving licence, for which the appellant had repudiated the insurance claim. Admittedly, the complainant had insured his truck bearing registration No. OR-14-C-6458 with the appellant /opposite party vide policy No. 3155050332832 which was valid from 21. 3. 2000 to 20. 3. 2001. During this period the truck met with an accident on 6. 12. 2000 near Hiren Park, P. S. Khunti, Dist. Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand. The complainant informed the appellant and submitted his claim form towards the estimated cost of the damaged truck. The opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 26. 3. 2001 on the ground that the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by one driver-Rambilas Sharma with a fake driving licence. It is also a fact that the complainant had filed a CD case No. 95 of 2001 earlier to this case before the District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela which was dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.

We have heard the learned Cousel appearing from both sides and perused the documents available in the record.

IT is apparent from the orders of the District Forum that the first CD Case No. 95 of 2001 was not heard or disposed of on merit, but was dismissed only when the District Forum found the claim to be Rs. 6,90,000 while taking the claim of the complainant on different heads mentioned in the petition which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The law is well settled on this point. If an application for redressal has not been heard or dismissed on merit, but has been dismissed only on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum, the complainant has the liberty to file a case on the same ground for same relief before the same Forum within the period of limitation. The cause of action to file the case started on 26. 3. 2001 when the appellant intimated the complainant about the repudiation of his claim and the complainant filed the present case on 15. 3. 2002 which is within the period of limitation. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the District Forum on this issue. As far as the main ground for repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the opposite party is concerned the learned Cousel for the appellant has brought to our notice that the driver of the complainant was driving the truck at the time of accident with a licence No. 206/86-87 issued and renewed by the R. T. O. , Rourkela which was found to be a fake driving licence after investigation, when the appellant approached the Licencing Authority, Rourkela for verification of the aforementioned driving licence, they informed him in writing that on the basis of a driving licence No. 17139 of 83 issued by the Licencing Authority of Allahabad they had issued the above mentioned licence. The appellant thereafter verified from the Licensing Authority of Allahabad and found that the driving licence No. 17139 of 83 has not been issued by the Allahabad Licensing Authority and is a fake one. Therefore, the appellant claims that when the basic licence No. 17139 of 83 is a fake licence, the driving licence issued by the R. T. O. , Rourkela bearing No. 206 of 86-87 on that basis is also a fake one. The learned Cousel for the appellant has brought to our notice several decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and Hon''ble Orissa High Court to bring home that a fake driving licence renewed by a competent Licencing Authority elsewhere cannot become a valid driving licence. He urged that as the alleged vehicle was driven by driver Rambilas Sharma at the time of accident and the driver was holding a fake licence the appellant is completely justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. During course of argument, the learned Counsel for the appellant had also pointed out that when the complainant came to know about the fake driving licence of his driver, he managed to obtain a new driving licence No. 903/96-97 dated 4. 2. 1997 issued by the Licensing Authority of Sundargarh in favour of his driver. As there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, in short, the M. V. Act that a person can possess two driving licences and which being a crime and punishable under Section 181 of the M. V. Act, the appellant rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.

WE have absolutely no hesitation to accepte the well settled principle that a licence obtained or renewed on the basis of a fake driving licence is not a valid driving licence and is also a fake one. But the complainant has produced another driving licence of his driver bearing No. 903/96-97 which finds mention in the written version of the opposite party (appellant) and nowhere the appellant says that this driving licence is a fake one. We, therefore, hold that the driving licence No. 903/96-97 issued by the Licensing Authority, Sundargarh in favour of the driver-Rambilas Sharma on 4. 2. 1997 is a valid driving licence. Though there is provision in the M. V. Act that a person cannot possess more than one driving licence and doing so is a crime and punishable under the M. V. Act, the Consumer Fora is not the proper Forum to try and decide such a case. The law has provided different procedures under the different Acts and statutes for awarding any punishment or relief. It is quite clear from the certified copies of the Final Form, filed by the complainant which has been obtained from the Court of the A. C. J. M. , Khunti, Dist. Ranchi that the Officer in-charge, in short O. I. C. of Khunti P. S. had also seized the licence No. 903/96-97 from the driver on the date of accident while investigating the case. When this driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Sundargarh on 4. 2. 1997, much prior to the date of accident and the same was seized from the driver by the O. I. C, Khunti P. S. in course of investigation, its genuineness cannot be suspected. We, therefore, hold that the driver of the truck in question was possessing a valid driving licence on the date and time of accident while driving the said truck. Just citing the provisions of M. V. Act in respect to holding two driving licences out of which one may be a fake one, the appellant should not have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver was holding a fake licence. The complainant/respondent has brought to our notice, the decision of this Commission in CD Appeal No. 498 of 2000 disposed of on 2. 2. 2007 in which this Commission has decided that "the driver might be guilty of possessing two driving licences, but it should not stand on the way of the claim lodged by the respondent". If one of the driving licences is valid driving licence, the Consumer Fora cannot disallow the claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In view of our above observations, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the District Forum and its order dated 2. 9. 2002. Hence, the appeal is dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned order of the District Forum is confirmed. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Mr. Subash Mahtab, Member-I agree. Appeal dismissed.