SULTAN SINGH vs The Branch Manager

THIS revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 26.08.2013 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner complainant and confirmed the order of the District Forum Panipat dismissing the complaint.

THE facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner complainant insured his car registration number HR67A -2907 with the opposite party no. 1 insurance company for Rs. 4,01,788/ - for the period w.e.f. 10.08.2011 to 09.08.2012. On 17.12.2011 the subject car caught fire resulting in extensive damage. The accident was reported to the insurance company. The opposite party appointed a surveyor and the surveyor M/s. T.P. Singh & Company vide his report dated 18.02.2012 recommended settlement of insurance claim on total loss basis subject to the approval and also conditions. It may be noted that initially the complainant inadvertently submitted a driving license of the driver purported to have been issued by Transport Authority Mathura. However, when the complainant came to know about the error, he submitted original driving license of the driver of the car bearing No. 7530/N/11 issued on 23.11.2011 by RRO Gurgaon and valid upto 22.11.2014. Despite of the driving license issued by Gurgaon Transport Authority being valid, the insurance company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 01.08.2012 on the ground that by holding two driving license, the driver of the car has committed violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, ''the Act'') which amounts to the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the insurance claim, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint which was resisted by the opposite parties. The District Forum Panipat on consideration of the pleadings and evidence dismissed the complaint. Relevant observations of the District Forum are reproduced as under: "After perusal of the report of Licensing Authority Mathura and evidence produced by the opposite parties it is well proved that complainant produce the driving license of Surender Kumar to opposite parties for verification and in this verification driving license was found fake. Hence the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties was justified. Complainant produced another driving license in the court but no reason has been stated why the second license was not submitted at first instance when the claim was submitted. Whichever license submitted by the complainant to insurance company the same was found fake. So, we do not found any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim of complainant."

PETITIONER being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, preferred an appeal and the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum with following observations: "We do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant -complainant. It is well settled principle of law that a person cannot hold two driving licenses at the same time in view of Section 6 of the Act. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by this Commission in Appeal No. 3026 of 2004 titled as United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Versus Jai Parkash Goyal decided on 29.09.2009 wherein the second driving license of the driver was held as illegal and the insurance company was held not liable to pay any insurable benefits to the claimant. The judgment rendered by this Commission was upheld by Hon''ble National Commission in case cited as Jai Parkash Goyal Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. : II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC) wherein it has been held that:

"4. Before the State Commission it was urged by the Counsel for the complainant that possessing of two driving licences by a driver may be an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act but the same is not sufficient to deny the claim of the complainant. When holding of two licences is prohibited under the law and is an offence, we fail to understand as to how and why the same cannot be pressed into service for rejecting the claim since holding of two licenses at the same time would not only be in contravention of Rule 6 would be that the second driving license obtained by a person would be invalid for all practical purposes as the same was obtained in contravention of Provision 6 of the said Act. Any other interpretation would be the violation of the provision of the said Act. Besides this, it was also found that the tanker in question was overloaded in breach of policy conditions which contributed to the accident."

This case is fully covered by settled law in Jai Parkash Goyal''s case (Supra).

From the record it is established that the complainant had furnished the driving license of his driver Surender Kumar being No. 14698/MTR/04 which was originally found fake and therefore the second driving license subsequently produced by the complainant cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, the appellant -Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit to the complainant.

As a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, we hardly find any ground to differ with the view taken by the District Consumer Forum in dismissing the complaint.

LEARNED Shri Vikas Jain, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that orders of the foras below are not sustainable for the reason that both the foras below have failed to appreciate that driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was having a valid driving license issued by transport authority Gurgaon, as such, repudiation of claim on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy is not sustainable. It is further contended that the State Commission failed to appreciate that this is not a case of person having two driving licenses because admittedly, driving license purportedly issued by Mathura Transport Authority was found to be fake and as such it is not worth the piece of paper on which it was prepared. Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and contended that State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the complainant following the ratio of judgments of this Commission in the matter of Jai Parkash Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. : II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC). Learned counsel has also referred to the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Commission in RP No. 3496 of 2013 titled as M/s. Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 26.08.2014.

WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Both the foras below on consideration of the evidence has come to the conclusion that repudiation of claim by respondent opposite party was justified. Annexure P6 to the revision petition is the copy of repudiation letter dated 01.08.2012 which reads as under: "With respect to your above said claim, it is intimated that the competent authority has repudiated your claim on the following ground:

Initially your goodself at the time of registration of your claim gave the driving license no. 17527/03 date of issue 16.12.2003 and valid upto 19.05.2012 which was duly verified by the company and on verification was found to be fake and it was the violation of the terms and condition of the policy which clearly provides that the vehicle must be driven by a person holding valid and effective driving license and thus your claim is liable to be repudiated.

When you came to know that the earlier license given by you has been found to be fake, you procured an other driving license and forwarded the same to us for consideration. Let us convey you that there are no provisions in the motor vehicle act which could allow a person to hold two driving licenses so as to produce them at sweet will. Thus, your second driving license cannot be taken into consideration and earlier license having been found to be fake, your claim is hereby repudiated."

ON reading of the above, we find that first reason for repudiating the claim is that earlier driving license submitted in support of the insurance claim was found to be fake. Therefore, the respondent complainant procured other driving license and forwarded to the insurance company for consideration. We find no merit in this ground for the reason that admittedly driving license No. 7530/N/11 authorizing the vehicle driver Surender Kumar to drive motor cycle, LMV, HTV & HPV w.e.f. 23.11.2011 to 22.11.2014, issued in favour of driver Surender Kumar by RTO Gurgaon was subsequently submitted in support of the insurance claim. On receipt of said driving license, it was expected by the insurance company to verify the genuineness of said driving license instead of rejecting the claim on the plea that the driving license was procured with a view to support the insurance claim. During the pendency of the revision petition, we directed the petitioner Company to verify the genuineness of the license purported to have been issued by Transport Authority Gurgaon. The petitioner has submitted the verification report dated 19.08.2004 whereby it has been certified that the driving license is genuine as per the RTO record. The driving license was issued by RTO Gurgaon on 23.11.2011 i.e. prior to the accident. Therefore, the plea that license has been procured to support the claim does not hold water. Thus, it cannot be said that at the time accident, driver Surender Kumar was not having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question. Thus, in our view, both the foras below have gone wrong in appreciating the facts on this aspect. Other reason for dismissal of claim and the complaint given by the foras below is that Section 6 of the Act puts a restriction on a person holding a valid driving license to hold any other driving license except learner''s license or a driving license issued under section 18. The aforesaid reason given for justifying the repudiation of insurance claim and dismissal of claim suffers from inherent defect because the foras below have failed to appreciate that as per the evidence on record, the first license purportedly issued by Mathura Transport Authority in support of the insurance claim was found to be fake. If that license was fake, then it cannot be said that Surender Kumar, driver of the subject car had obtained license from Transport Authority Gurgaon in violation of Section 6 of the Act.

IN view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that it is established on record that Surender Kumar at the time of accident was holding a valid driving license and impugned orders of the foras below are based upon incorrect appreciation of facts and law. Thus, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

REVISION petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned orders are set aside and respondent insurance company is directed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 3,79,000/ - against his insurance claim on total loss basis as assessed by the surveyor with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 18.02.2012 till the realization of amount.