UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs ARVINDER SINGH

SINCE these revisions arise out of a common order dated 27.9.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing appeals against two orders dated 13.8.2005 of a District Forum, we propose to dispose of them by this common order.

RESPONDENT /complainant was the owner of Truck bearing registration No. HR 37A 5452 which was insured with petitioner/ opposite party for the period from 8.10.2003 to 7.10.2004. Truck met with an accident on 23.10.2003 and again on 15.11.2003. On claims made being repudiated on ground of Davinder Singh, driver not having a valid driving licence, the respondent filed complaint case Nos. 200/ 05 and 201/05 which were contested by filing written versions by the petitioner mainly on the ground of said driver not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In complaint case No. 200/05 pertaining to accident on 23.10.2005, the petitioner was directed to pay amount of Rs. 47,208/- towards damage to the truck and Rs. 1,000/-as damages which covered interest from the date of filing complaint till date of order as also cost to the respondent. In complaint case No. 201/05 relating to the accident dated 15.11.2003, the petitioner was directed to pay amount of .Rs. 1,21,095.50 towards damage to the truck, Rs. 5,000/- as damages which covered interest from the date of filing complaint till date of order as also cost to the respondent. F.A. Nos. 1198 of 2005 and 1199 of 2005 filed against District Forum''s orders by the petitioner were dismissed by the State Commission.

ONLY submission advanced by Mr. Kishore Rawat for petitioner whom we have heard on admission, was that driving licence No. 3405/2000-03 in the name of Davinder Singh was renewed by the District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur on basis of driving licence No. 2466/85-86 issued by Licensing Authority, Hamirpur (H.P.) which was fake. Driver, thus, could not be said to be possessing a valid driving licence on the dates of accidents. Since there was violation of condition of Insurance Policy, Fora below erred in passing the awards against the petitioner. It may be seen from the orders of Fora below that oh the application filed by Anil Sharma, Surveyor the District Transport Officer Hoshiarpur issued certificate that Licence No. 3405/00-03 in the name of Davinder Singh was renewed by it on the basis of driving licence bearing No. 2466/85-86 issued by Licensing Authority, Hamirpur (H.P.). Further, on the application filed by Ajay Dogra, Surveyor, the Licensing Authority, Hamirpur (H.P.) issued certificate that licence No. 2466/85-86 in favour of Davinder Singh was not issued as per the record of Registering and Licensing Authority, Hamirpur (H.P.). Renewal of licence by District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur though based on bogus licence was thus genuine

ORDER of State Commission notices that in the copy of driving licence Ex. C5 issued by District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur, no reference was made of the licence issued by Licensing Authority, Hamirpur (H.P.) and, therefore, respondent could not have even imagined that Davinder Singh had some other licence issued by Licensing Authority, Hamirpur (H.P.). There was, therefore, no evidence to show that driving licence held by the said driver was fake to the knowledge of respondent. Taking note of the two decisions of this Commission and two decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and Others, II (2003) SLT 516=1 (2003) ACC 611 (SC)=AIR 2003 SC1292 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, I (2004) SLT 345=1 (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the State Commission did not find any infirmity in the orders of the District Forum. We are not inclined to take a view different from that taken by the State Commission in the matter. Submission referred to above is repelled being without any merit. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed being without any merit.