UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs Anil Batta

I . A. NO. 4160 OF 2014 This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application the delay is condoned subject to payment of Rs.10,000/ - as cost. The application stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay the cost within four weeks. The cost shall be remitted to the complainant within that much period by way of a pay order/demand draft in his name. R.P. NO.2604 OF 2014 The complainant took an insurance policy in respect of a vehicle No.RJ14 -2C -5539 for the period from 20 -02 -1998 to 19 -02 -1999. On 16 -09 -1998, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged. The complainant thereupon lodged a claim with the insurance company and a surveyor was also appointed to assess the damage. However, the claim lodged by the complainant was rejected on the ground that the vehicle, at the time it met with an accident was being driven by one Lala Ram, who did not possess a valid driving license since the driving license produced by him was of one Ratan Lal. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking the following reliefs:

(i) claim amount for vehicle accident : Rs.70,000/ -

(ii) mental agony : Rs.30,000/ -

(iii) physical agony : Rs.20,000/ -

(iv) cost of litigation : Rs.2,100/ -

THE complaint was resisted by the insurance company, primarily on the ground that at the time it met with an accident the vehicle was driven by Mr. Lala Ram but the complainant projected one Ratan Lal as Lala Ram. The reason for projecting Ratan Lal as Lala Ram was that Lala Ram did not possess a valid driving license. On investigation the insurance company came to know that Lala Ram resident of Village Gordhapura, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar of Rajasthan have five sons namely Ram Dayal, Ram Avtar, Hari Ram, Nanda Ram and Lala Ram. It would be confirmed during investigation that Lala Ram was also known as Ratan Lal.

VIDE its order dated 16 -11 -2011 the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 03 -12 -2013 the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant relying upon an affidavit filed by the complainant stating therein that Ratan Lal and Lala Ram are one and the same person. The complainant also submitted affidavit of two other persons, Anil Singh and Mahendra Singh, in support of his claim that Ratan Lal and Lala Ram are one and the same person. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission the insurance company is before us by way of this revision petition.

IT is not in dispute that the person who was driving vehicle at the time it met with an accident disclosed his name to be Lala Ram. It is also not in dispute that he was not able to produce any driving license in his name and the driving license produced by him was in the name of one Ratan Lal son of Prabhu Dayal resident of Village Gordhanpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar of Rajasthan. Therefore, the only question which comes up for consideration is as to whether the person who was driving the vehicle namely Lala Ram is also known as Ratan Lal. When this revision petition came up for hearing we asked the learned counsel for the complainant to file an affidavit of the driver stating therein that he was known by two names i.e. Lala Ram and Ratan Lal. However, despite taking two adjournments for this purpose, the complainant could not file the affidavit of the driver. Since the complainant has failed to file affidavit of the driver despite repeated opportunities having been given to him an adverse inference needs to be drawn against him that in fact Lala Ram and Ratan Lal are two different persons and that is why the driver has refused to file an affidavit. As a necessary corollary we must infer that Lala Ram who was driving the vehicle at the time it met with an accident did not have a driving license issued to him. The case before us is not the case of a third party sustaining damages from the vehicle driven by a person who did not possess a driving license. In the case before us the insured himself is the claimant, he being the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company would be fully justified in repudiating the claim if it is found that the driver did not possess a valid driving license at the time the vehicle met with an accident. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Jain Civil Appeal No. 6248 of 2009 decided on 14.09.2009, the Hon''ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision in Laxmi Narain Dhut and Swaran Singh specifically held as under: "In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007 3 SCC 700, it has been clearly laid down that the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Anr., 2004 3 SCC 297 has no application to the cases other than third -party risks and where originally licence was a fake, renewal thereof cannot validate the same. In the present case, the complaint was filed for damage of the vehicle of the insured and not the third party risk. The District Forum and State Commission have concurrently held that the original licence of the driver was fake. This being the position, the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint and the State Commission committed an error by awarding compensation to the respondent".

In the aforesaid case, the complaint was filed by the insured himself seeking compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle, which had met with an accident. It was found that the driving license possessed by the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence. The National Commission having decided in favour of the complainant, the matter was taken by the insurance company to the Apex Court.

IN United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, 2007 8 SCC 698, the respondent owned a vehicle which he had got insured from the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The said vehicle met an accident with a truck. It was being driven by a person, who did not possess a valid license. The owner of the vehicle filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking compensation for the damages caused to his vehicle. This Commission have ruled in his favour. The matter was taken to the Hon''ble Supreme Court by way of an appeal. Allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company, the Apex Court inter -alia held that the fora below had committed an error in holding the insurance company liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle with regard to the losses sustained by him. During the course of the judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, inter -alia observed as under: "10. It is, thus, axiomatic that whereas an insurance company may be held to be liable to indemnify the owner for the purpose of meeting the object and purport f the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same may not be necessary in a case where an insurance company may refuse to compensate the owner of the vehicle towards his own loss. A distinction must be borne in mind as regards the statutory liability of the insurer vis - -vis the purport and object sought to be achieved by a beneficent legislation before a forum constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act and enforcement of a contract qua contract before a Consumer Forum".

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed. No order as to cost.