United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs MEHAR SINGH

THE relevant facts, giving rise to the appeal, briefly stated are as follows : THE complainant, Mehar Singh, was the owner of the Vehicle No. HP-20-1021 which had been insured with the opposite party. United India Insurance Company, during the period 5.3.92 to 4.3.93. On 21,11.92, when the said vehicle was being driven by one Vinod Kumar from Jhalera to Una, it met with an accident near Shamshanghat, Una. As a result of the said accident, the complainant lodged a claim with the Divisional Office in question of the opposite party for Rs. 65,648.55 on account of damage to the vehicle. THE said claim was lodged by the complainant on 18.1.93. However, as the opposite party did not respond to the said claim for a period of more than one and half years, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Una on 28.9.94 for ordering the opposite party to make payment of Rs. 65,648.55 to him alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

ON the notice of the complaint in question having been served on it, it was admitted by the opposite party before the District Forum that the vehicle in question had been insured with it at the relevant time and also that as a result of the accident it had suffered damage to the extent of Rs. 65,648.55. However, it denied its liability to pay the claim made by the complainant on the plea that the driver who had been driving the vehicle, namely Vinod Kumar, did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In the said connection, it may be mentioned that it was for the first time during the pendency of the claim proceedings before the District Forum that the opposite party served a letter dated 18.10.94 on the complainant rejecting the claim made by him on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, Vinod Kumar had not held a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Before the District Forum, both the parties produced documentary evidence in support of their respective stands. They also submitted affidavits of concerned persons by way of evidence. On behalf of the complainant, a copy of the driving licence of Vinod Kumar was filed as exhibit P-7. It was evident from the said document that the driving licence of the said driver was renewed by the Motor Licensing Authority, Una for the period 12.3.91 to 11.3.94. The complainant also filed another document, exhibit P10, which was an endorsement made by the Motor Licensing Authority, Una showing that the driving licence of the said driver was duly renewed by it for the period 12.3.91 to 11.3.94.

However, the renewed licence issued by the Motor Licensing Authority, Una showed that the original driving licence had been issued to driver Vinod Kumar by the Licensing Authority, Amritsar in the year, 1988. On behalf of the opposite party/Insurance Company, it was tried to be established by filing a copy of letter exhibit R-l that the Licensing Authority at Amritsar did not grant any driving licence in favour of the said driver in 1988. It was on the basis of the said letter that it was contended on behalf of the opposite party that at the time of accident on 21.11.92 the driver in question did not hold any valid licence. Apart from the said letter, there was no other evidence produced on behalf of the opposite party in support of the said contention.

AFTER having given opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence, and after having heard them in respect of their rival contentions, the District Forum was of the view that even if it was assumed that initially no driving licence had been issued by the Motor Licensing Authority, Amritsar in favour of driver Vinod Kumar in 1988, the fact that there was a renewal of driving licence by the Motor Licensing Authority, Una in favour of the said driver for the period 12.3.91 to 12.3.94 could not be ignored. It was during the period of the renewed licence that the accident in question had taken place on 21.11.92. The District Forum placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein while interpreting the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act it was held by the said Court that the renewal of a licence by the Competent Authority had the effect of validating the driving licence and the Insurance Company was liable to reimburse the insured for the loss. Thus, according to the District Forum, in the circumstances of the case, the driving licence of Vinod Kumar was to be deemed to be valid at the time of the accident on 21.11.92 and accordingly the opposite party was liable to reimburse the complainant for the damage caused to the vehicle. The District Forum was further of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a case of there being a deficiency in service within the meaning of Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was also clearly made out. As already seen, the accident in question had taken place on 21.11.92 and the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party/Insurance Company on However, the opposite party/Insurance Company did not do anything in the matter and sat tight over it for a period of more than one and half years. It was only after the complainant moved the District Forum on 28.9.94 that a socalled letter of repudiation was issued by it on Needless to say, such a repudiation was of no avail to the opposite party/Insurance Company and it was not entitled to take shelter under it.

ON the basis of its above findings, the District Forum vide its order dated 21.12.94, allowed the complaint made by the complainant and ordered the opposite party /Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 65,648.55 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realisation to the complainant. It also ordered it to pay an amount of Rs. 500 /- as costs to the complainant. It is being aggrieved by the said order that the opposite party/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this State Commission. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was greatly significant that the Motor Licensing Authority, Una, in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had granted renewal of driving licence in favour of driver Vinod Kumar for the period 12.3.91 to 12.3.94 and that it was during the said period that when the vehicle in question was being driven by the said driver it met with an accident on 21.11.92. The fact of such a renewal having been granted by the said Licensing Authority in favour of the said driver for the said period was not disputed on behalf of the opposite party/Insurance Company. In fact, the said fact was also amply established from the material produced by the complainant before the District Forum.

NOW, the relevant part of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deals with renewal of driving licence, reads as follows : "(1) Any Licensing Authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry. (2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government (6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence."

IN the present case, since the fact of the Motor Licensing Authority, Una having issued the renewal of driving licence in favour of driver Vinod Kumar for the period 12.3.91 to 12.3.94 was not in dispute, and the said fact was otherwise also well established, it is legitimate to presume that before the grant of such renewal the said driver had duly presented an application for the renewal of his licence in the prescribed form and the said application had been duly accompanied by the documents prescribed under the rules as required by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Again, it is also legitimate to presume that while issuing the renewal of driving licence in favour of the said driver as described above, the said Authority did send an intimation regarding the fact of such renewal to the Authority which was stated to have issued the driving licence i.e. the Licensing Authority, Amritsar as required by the provisions of the Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Act. It is significant to note that the provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as discussed above, contain sufficient safeguards against anybody obtaining or trying to obtain renewal of a fake licence from the Licensing Authority before whom the application for renewal of a driving licence is made. In the first instance, a duty has been cast on the said Licensing Authority to scrutinise carefully the information furnished by the applicant in the application for renewal made by him as also the contents of the documents filed by the applicant alongwith the application. Secondly, the purpose behind the authority being required to send an intimation regarding the fact of renewal to the Authority which was said to have issued the driving licence is also quite obvious. What is contemplated under the said provision is that in case the applicant is successful in obtaining the renewal of a fake licence, the Authority which is alleged to have issued the driving licence shall write back to the Authority renewing the said licence and expose the fact of it being a fake licence.

In the above connection, the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act are no less significant. The said provisions take care of follow-up action which the Licensing Authority renewing the driving licence is expected to take in a situation in which as a result of the intimation received by it from the Authority which (sic.) to have issued the driving licence it is discovered by it that the applicant has been successful in obtaining the renewal of a fake licence from it. In such a situation, the authority renewing the driving licence is empowered under Section 16 of the Act to revoke the renewal of driving licence granted by it in favour of such an applicant.

IN the case before us, there is not even a whisper of evidence produced on behalf of the opposite party/INsurance Company to suggest that there was any intimation sent by the Licensing Authority which was alleged to have issued the driving licence in favour of driver Vinod Kumar in the year, 1988, namely the Licensing Authority, Amritsar to the Licensing Authority renewing the said licence in the year, 1991, namely the Licensing Authority, Una, that no driving licence as alleged was issued by it in favour of the said driver in the said year i.e. in 1988. There is also no whisper of evidence produced by it to suggest that pursuant to such an intimation any steps were taken by the Licensing'' Authority renewing the said licence in the year, 1991 to proceed to cancel the renewal of the said licence at any time in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 16 of the Act. Thus, there is no material whatsoever produced by the opposite party/Insurance Company on the basis of which it could be held as established that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle, namely Vinod Kumar did not hold any valid licence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the burden of establishing the said fact was on the opposite party/Insurance Company and it utterly failed to discharge the said burden. On the other hand, it was quite apparent from the material on the record of the case that at the time of accident it was the validly renewed licence by the Licensing Authority, Una in exercise of the power vested in the said Authority under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was in operation and it was under the said renewed licence that the vehicle in question was being lawfully driven by the said driver. The letter produced on behalf of the opposite party in support of its contention that at the time of accident the driver in question did not hold any valid licence was a useless and inclusive piece of evidence. The matters forming part of public record could not be proved or disproved by production of such type of letter.

AS already discussed earlier, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there could be no doubt regarding the fact that a case of there being a deficiency of service within the meaning of Clause (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2. of the Consumer Protection Act was clearly made out. The accident had taken place on 21.11.92. The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party/Insurance Company on 18.1.93. However, the opposite party/Insurance Company did not do anything in the matter and sat tight over it for more than one and half years. It was only after the complainant moved the District Forum on 28.9.94 that a so-called letter of repudiation was issued by it on 18.10.94. There was a complete absence of application of mind by the opposite party/ Insurance Company and it was not entitled to take shelter under such a repudiation. It was not in dispute that as a result of the accident, the vehicle in question had suffered damage to the extent of Rs. 65,648.55. Accordingly, in view of the findings as discussed above the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint made by the complainant and ordered the opposite party/Insurance Company to pay an amount or Rs. 65,648.55 alongwith interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realisation and costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. The opposite party/appellant shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as the costs of this appeal to the complainant/respondent. The said amount of costs, as also the balance amount of decree, inclusive of interest and costs awarded by the District Forum shall be deposited by the opposite party/appellant with the District Forum on or before 20th of July, 1995. Appeal dismissed with costs.