Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs PIARE LAL KAUSHAL

THE challenge in this appeal is to the Order of the learned District Forum, Bilaspur dated 20.10.95, whereby the District Forum has directed the opposite party (hereinafter to be referred to as appellant) to pay to the complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent) to pay Rs. 60,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim to the date of payment of the aforesaid insurance amount and costs of Rs. 500/-.

THE uncontroverted facts which are necessary for determination of point in controversy are that the respondent owns a truck bearing Registration No. HIB 4067 which was insured with the appellant for the period from 15.2.93 to 14.2.94. During the period of insurance, on 2.10.93, the truck of the respondent was damaged and he consequently informed the appellant about such an accident. THE appellant deputed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 60,000/- although actually the loss stated to be estimated by the respondent was to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-. After having completed all the formalities, the respondent submitted his claim of insurance which was rejected by the appellant on the ground that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident did not possess a valid driving licence. The only material argument advanced by Mr. Deepak Bhasin, learned Counsel for the appellant, was that the Driver Rattan Lal of the respondent was not having a valid licence at the time of the accident, as according to him, no doubt, the Licencing Authority, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. has renewed the licence alleged to have been issued by the Registration and Licencing Authority, Chamba, but on enquiry, it was informed that no driving licence as such was issued by the Registration & Licencing Authority, Chamba. The renewal of licence by the Licencing Authority, Barsar is, therefore, of no consequence and is non-est. The person who was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and, therefore, the appellants are justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent.

There is no dispute that the Licencing Authority at Barsar has renewed the Licence twice, once from 17.5.90 to 16.5.93 and again from 19.5.93 to 18.5.96. This is apparent from the application filed by the complainant before the M.L.O. Barsar Annexure A-1 and the affidavit filed by the complainant Shri Piare Lal dated 21.9.95, such licence was renewed by the Licencing Authority, Barsar on the basis of Licence No. 384/CH/87-88 alleged to have been issued by the Licencing Authority, Chamba. However, on enquiry made by the Surveyor/ Loss Assessor Mr. Pradeep Sharma from the Licencing Authority, Chamba, it is revealed that such licence was not issued by the Licencing Authority, Chamba. This stands substantiated from the affidavit filed by Shri K.K. Gupta, Branch Manager M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., dated 21.9,95, and a letter addressed to Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Surveyor/Loss Assessor, Chamba by the Licencing Authority, Chamba, District Chamba. On the basis of the affidavit produced on the record, we have no doubt in mind that no licence No. 384/CH/87-88 was issued by the Licencing Authority, Chamba on the basis of which the licence was renewed by the Licencing Authority, Barsar. We endorse the findings given by the District Forum.

THE next question that arises for consideration is that if the renewal of the licence by the Licencing Authority, at Barsar is found to be genuine and that the driver was having such licence in his possession while the vehicle met with accident, can it be said that such a licence was a valid driving licence? We are of the opinion that if licence has been renewed on the basis of forged and fabricated licence, renewed licence cannot acquire any legal validity in the eyes of law. Renewal of licence can be only on the basis of licence which is genuine and has actually been issued by the Licencing Authority. This precise question arose for consideration before the National Commission in case M/s. Essma Felts Private Limited v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another in First Appeal No. 120 of 1993, decided on 25th April, 1995 and it was held that "In the eyes of law, a fake licence is as good as non-est and renewal of a non-est also amounts to a non-est licence, more so, when the renewal was made without verifying the genuineness of the original licence from its issuing Authority".

AGAIN this question came for consideration before the National Commission in case Raj Kumar and Another v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in I (1996) CPJ 241 (NC)=1996 (1) Current Consumer Cases 102. The National Commission has endorsed the decision of the State Commission that if the licence of the driver was fake and forged one, the renewal of the licence by the other Licencing Authority does not clothe it with any authority. It has been observed that "it, therefore, becomes contractually incumbent on the insured to satisfy himself of the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver he employed. The ignorance on the part of the owner about the driver''s fake licence cannot, therefore, be a ground for allowing insurance claims". The learned Counsel for the appellant tried to take support of some observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Skandia Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Others, 1987 (2) SCR 752, and also reported in AIR 1987 SC 1184. In fact the Trial Court has also relied on these observations that the owner did not know about the fake licence of his driver and consequently accepted the version of the complainant. The State Commission in both the cases aforesaid supra have taken into consideration the ratio laid down in M/s. Skandia Insurance Company''s case and have come to the conclusion that this case is distinguishable and have held that in the eyes of law, a fake licence is as good as non-est and renewal of a non-est also amounts to a non-est licence, more so, when the renewal was made without verifying the genuineness of the original licence from its issuing authority. In the Skandia Insurance Company Ltd., case, the question under consideration was not a renewal of a fake and forged licence and hence that case is distinguishable. In these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no option left to the Commission except to dismiss the complaint of the respondent/complainant. This, however, will not preclude the complainant from seeking their ordinary remedy in civil jurisdiction if otherwise permissible under law.

IN the light of what is discussed above, the appeal is accepted and the order of the learned District Forum is set aside and thereby the complaint is also dismissed. IN the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.