UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs DELHI DHULIA ROAD CARRIER

K. S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

[1] This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.11.2008 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1004 of 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Delhi Dhulia Road Carrier by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District forum allowing complaint was modified.

[2] Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent''s truck HR-38J-3324 was insured by OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 17.9.2003 to 16.9.2004. Vehicle was damaged in accident during validity of the policy. OP was intimated who appointed surveyor who assessed loss of Rs.82,200/-. Photocopy of driving licence was given to OP and salvage was also deposited with OP, but OP rejected claim on the ground that driving licence was fake. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as driving licence was fake claim was rightly repudiated. It was further submitted that as driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence, complainant was not entitled to any claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.82,200/- along with Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- was reduced to Rs.10,000/- against which, this revision petition has been filed.

[3] Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.

[4] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as driving licence submitted by complainant was fake, claim was rightly repudiated; even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in allowing appeal partly; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand respondent submitted that valid driving licence of driver was given to OP and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

[5] Perusal of record reveals that complainant submitted claim form to OP in which name of driver was shown as Ajay Kumar Yadav and his licence No.76/09/99 was submitted. In this licence driver''s father''s name was shown as Ram Bali Yadav. On investigation, this licence was found fake and OP vide letter dated 15.4.2004 repudiated claim as driving licence submitted by complainant of the driver was fake. It appears that complainant vide letter dated 1.6.2004 supplied another licence no. 15364 issued by Licensing Authority, Dehradun pertaining to driver which was valid from 10.5.2002 to 9.5.2005. In this licence also name of driver''s father was shown as Ram Bali. On investigation, investigator found that Licensing Authority issued aforesaid licence in the name of Ajay Kumar S/o. M. Singh and copy of that licence shown name of father of Ajay Kumar as M. Singh has also been placed on record which also bears same licence no. 15364.

[6] Perusal of copies of both licence no. 15364 reveals that except change of name of father, there is no change in both the licences and it appears that both licences are photocopy of the same licence except with change of name of father of the driver. Thus, it becomes clear that aforesaid licence no. 15364 showing name of Ram Bali as father of driver is fake, but licence no. 15364 showing name of M.Singh as father of driver Ajay Kumar is duly issued licence.

[7] When complainant along with claim form submitted licence of Ajay Kumar shown his father''s name as Ram Bali, now, it cannot be believed that driver Ajay Kumar''s father''s name was M. Singh, particularly, when complainant supplied another fake licence of Ajay Kumar depicting his father''s name as Ram Bali.

[8] Respondent submitted that his driver Ajay Kumar''s father''s name was M. Singh. After submitting 2 fake licences of driver Ajay Kumar depicting his father''s name as Ram Bali, it cannot be held that driver Ajay Kumar''s father''s name was M. Singh and he was holding proper licence on the date of accident. Perusal of claim form reveals that driver''s address was given as B-109, Rajpura Rani, Dehradun and same address has been given in fake licence no. 76/09/99 whereas another two licence no. 15364 shows address of driver as 68, Gardhi Road, Dehradun and in such circumstances, valid licence no. 15364 depicting father''s name as M. Singh cannot be believed to be of complainant''s driver Ajay Kumar

[9] In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that licence of driver Ajay Kumar S/o Ram Bali Yadav who was driving vehicle at the time of accident was fake and he was not possessing valid driving licence.

[10] When vehicle was not driven by a person holding valid driving licence at the time of accident, complainant was not entitled to any claim in the light of judgments of this Commission in (NC) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Kumar, 2008 3 CPJ 191 and (NC) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sansar Chand and OP, 2010 3 CPJ 256 has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim. Learned District Forum wrongly allowed complaint and learned State Commission further committed error while dismissing appeal partly and revision petition is to be allowed.

[11] Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 3.11.2008 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1004 of 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Delhi Dhulia Road Carrier and order of District Forum dated 6.11.2007 passed in OC No. 754/05 - M/s. Delhi Dhulia Road Carrier Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.