New India Assurance Co. Ltd.- vs M.Y. International

APPELLANT Insurance Company which was the Opposite Party before the State Commission has filed this Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.2.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Complaint Case No. C-210/1998 whereby the State Commission while allowing the complaint has directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Respondent towards the damages suffered by him. Rs. 25,000 were awarded towards compensation for mental agony and harassment.

COMPLAINANTS /Respondents obtained an Insurance Policy No. 716984 from the Appellant for its vehicle, i.e., Tata Sheira for a sum of Rs. 4,21,000. The policy was valid for the period from 5.4.1994 to 4.4.1995. Insured vehicle met with an accident on 22.3.1995 and suffered substantial damage. Respondents lodged the claim with the Appellant. On receiving intimation, Appellant appointed Surveyor, Mr. Khushi Ram to conduct the spot survey and assess the loss. The damaged vehicle was got repaired through M/s. Technic Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and they charged a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the repairs. Thereafter, Appellant appointed another Surveyor, M/s. Atul and Company for verifying the locus standi of the Complainant. Since the claim of the Respondents was not settled for a long time, they filed the complaint before the State Commission alleging negligence on the part of the Appellant. Appellant, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint, inter alia, on the grounds that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding an effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident; that the Respondents failed to produce the verification report of the driving licence No. P-94011134 from the concerned RTO; that the vehicle was in the name of Ms. Meenakshi Arora and not the insured as the insured sold the vehicle to her on 27.9.1996 after the accident; that the registration of the insured vehicle at the time of accident was in the name of Mr. Mohd. Y.S. Khan, Proprietor of M/s. M.Y. International whereas the insurance policy was obtained in the name of M/s. Y. International; that the claim of the Respondents was repudiated after verification of the driving licence No. P-94011134 from the RTO by the Surveyor who submitted a report that the said licence was not issued in the name of Driver, Syed Ali.

STATE Commission, after considering the facts, pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that a report was lodged by the Respondent with regard to the loss of the original driving licence No. P-94011134 with the Police Station, Muzaffar Nagar and in such a situation, a verification report from the concerned RTO was a vital piece of evidence. Respondent obtained a verification report dated 15.4.1995 from the concerned RTO showing that the licence No. P-95041712 was issued in the name of Sayed Ahmed and was valid upto 18.4.1998.

STATE Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Respondent towards the damages suffered by him. Rs. 25,000 were awarded towards compensation for mental agony and harassment. State Commission observed as under: "It is the authority which issues the driving licence which is the valid authority to give certificate whether a particular driving licenc, particularly the one which was given by the complainant in the report was a valid driving licence at the relevant time or not. In view of the verification report of the RTO the respondent was not competent to repudiate the claim. RTO is a statutory authority and therefore its report has to be relied upon unless and until it is afflicted with some mala fide or some elements of forgery or fraud. Claim of the complainant was not settled even without assessing the damage done to the vehicle. The first and foremost duty of the Surveyor is to first assess the damage to the vehicle and thereafter ask the consumer to furnish documents that are necessary for adjudication of the claim. To appoint an Investigator at first instance to find out whether the driver was having a valid drivng licence or not is not the procedure for adjudicating the claim against insurance policy. At first instance company is required to appoint a Surveyor to assess the loss and if there is suspicion of the genuineness of the claim or any document produced by the consumer an Investigator can be appointed. After having assessed the damages it was open to the Insurance Company to appoint Investigator to find out whether the consumer was in possession of valid driving licence at the relevant time or not, or any other ground that may be relevant for repudiating the claim. " To skip the exercise of not assessing the damage operates adversely to the Insurance Company as in that event damage assessed by the consumer has to be relied upon and accepted. In view of the report of the RTO we find that the complainant was in possession of valid driving licence at the relevant time. "

Appellant, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant confined his arguments to the point that the driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident. No other point was urged. It was contended that the claim of the Respondent was rightly repudiated by the Appellant as the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. That the Respondent has concocted a false story that Driving Licence No. P-94011134 allegedly issued in the name of driver, Sayed Arshad Ali was lost at the time of accident and when the driver applied for issuance of duplicate licence in lieu of the lost driving licence, he was issued a fresh Driving Licence No. C-9504172 which was in continuation to the earlier licence which was valid from 19.4.1995 to 18.4.1998. That the Investigator, Sh. Khushi Ram appointed by the Appellant in his report dated 29.8.1997 clearly mentioned that the driving licence No. C-95041712 was issued on 19.4.1995, i.e. after the accident and the said licence was not the duplicate of the licence No. 94011134. That the Respondent has failed to produce the verification report from concerned RTO with regard to genuineness of the driving licence No. 94011134. As against this, learned Counsel for the Respondent supports the order of the State Commission.

SURVEYOR appointed by the Appellant for verification of the driving licence No. P-94011134, has mentioned in his report that even after making lots of efforts the driving licence No. P-94011134 could not be verified from any of the available records of the Regional Transport Authority. The relevant portion of the report of Surveyor reads as under: "I had made two applications dated 14.3.1997 and 9.6.1997 before the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Mall Road for verification of the driving licence issued on 12.1.1994 and 19.4.1995 respectively. But on the both occasion it was verified that the driving licence No. C-95041712 was issued to Syed Arshad Ali s/o Syed Ashafaque Ali for LMV + M-Cycle. Even after making lots of efforts the driving licence P-94011134 could not be verified from any of the available records of the Regional Transport Authority. While the accident was occurred on 22.3.1995, during the period of this driving licence and the must be verified. Therefore, I am reporting that the driving licence No. P-94011134 could be verified from any of the record of the RTA. Therefore, it was found true that on 22.3.1995 no valid driving licence was issued by the Transport Authority in fact the same was forged on 19.4.1995, by an agent, only driving licence No. C-95041712 was verified.

WE do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that since the Surveyor could not verify from the record of the RTO that the driving licence No. P-94011134 did not pertain to the driver who was driving the vehicle, a presumption should be raised that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has drawn our attention to the Annexure R-6 which is a letter written by the Respondent to the Motor Licence Officer, Regional Transport Authority, Rajpur Road, Delhi to verify the driving licence No. P-94011134. The contents of the said letter are as under: "I am to request you to verify the particulars of LMV driving licence No. P-94011134 dated 12.1.1994 valid upto 18.4.1995 in the name of Syed Arshad Ali s/o Mr. Syed Ashafaque Ali as the same is required for production before Insurance Company in car claim. "

A perusal of the letter shows that an endorsement has been made by the concerned RTO on the letter itself to the effect that the Driver, Syed Arshad Ali was issued a fresh driving licence No. C-95041712 in place of the lost driving licence No. P-94011134. The earlier driving licence No. P-94011134 was valid upto 18.4.1995 and the fresh driving licence was issued for the subsequent period of three years from the expiry date of the earlier licence, i.e.,18.4.1995 till 18.4.1998.

WE concur with the finding recorded by the State Commission that on the date of accident the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence. Surveyor appointed by the Appellant for verification of the driving licence P-94011134 has failed to prove that the said licence was a fake licence. On the other hand, Respondent had established that the fresh driving licence No. C-95041712 was issued by the concerned RTO in lieu of the lost driving licence No. P-94011134 which was valid upto 18.4.1995. The fresh driving licence was given for the further period of three years upto 18.4.1998 Surveyor did not assess the loss caused to the vehicle. Respondent spent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 for the repair of the vehicle. In the absence of any assessment made by the Surveyor, the loss projected by the Respondent is accepted. The accident took place on 22.3.1995. 17 years have gone by. It will not serve any purpose in asking the Surveyor to assess the loss at this stage as much of the evidence regarding loss would not be available. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this Appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.