United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs SHEELA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.

BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that M/s. Sheela Construction Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 1 got its vehicle DCM Toyota bearing registration No. DL-1L-A-0791 insured with the appellant Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.3,41,000/- for the period 26.2.1993 to 25.2.1994. The vehicle met with an accident on 20th August, 1993. The respondent, who was complainant before the District Forum lodged a claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed M/s. J.R. Malhotra & Co., Surveyor. The Surveyor recommended that the claim be settled on total loss basis on payment of Rs. 1,98,500/-. The Insurance Company communicated its approval to the payment of the above amount towards settlementand requested the insured to complete the required formalities. The insured refused to accept the amount for the reasons stated in its letter dated 31.3.1994 and insisted for payment of Rs. 3,37,491/- stated to be the market value of the vehicle at the time of accident. The complainant approached District Forum. Before the District Forum, the insured agreed to accept Rs. 1,98,500/- in full and final settlement of the claim but in the meanwhile, the Insurance Company came to know that legal heirs of the deceased driver of the vehicle had filed a claim before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner at Etawah and in the course of those proceedings driving licence of the deceased driver was produced and got verified through the Surveyor by the concerned Division of the said Insurance Company. Upon verification the Licensing Authority, Raipur (MP), the Surveyor reported that the driving licence of the deceased driver was a fake one. On coming to know of this material fact, the Insurance Company moved an application before the District Forum stating that the complaint was not maintainable as the claim was liable to be repudiated. The District Forum after hearing the parties rejected the plea raised by the Insurance Company and allowed the complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,98,500/- alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date of accident.

AGGRIEVED by the order, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. The complainant M/s. Sheela Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. has been impleaded as respondent No. 2. Consistent with the practice being followed by this Commission, a reply has been filed but only by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 failed to appear at the time of hearing. We have, therefore, heard Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Shiv Kumar Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the amount due to respondent No. 2 has since been recovered from the complainant, insured in this case, and respondent No. 2 is, therefore, not interested in taking further part in these proceedings.

THE question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident held a valid driving licence. An ancillary question is whether renewal of an otherwise fake licence would validate the driving licence. A perusal of the order under appeal shows that the Insurance Company placed on record copy of letter dated 21.6.1995 received from Mr. C. Yajulu Rao, Surveyor and Loss Assessor addressed to the United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Raipur, after making necessary enquiry from the Licensing Authority, Raipur and enclosing letter dated 20.6.1995 issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur confirming that the driving licence in question bearing Nos. 7440/RPR had not been issued by their office. Alongwith the letter, the Insurance Company also produced a Photostat copy of the letterissued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur. The District Forum rejected the said evidence on the ground that the original letter issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur had not been produced, that the copy produced contained a cutting in respect of the licence number in the subject cited therein. As against the above infirmities in the evidence of the Insurance Company, the District Forum placed reliance on the original driving licence produced before it which on the face of it was in favour of Sandeep s/o B.S. Rana and contained signatures and stamp of the Licensing Authority, Raipur. The District Forum came to the conclusion that the driving licence produced was valid and accordingly rejected the plea raised by the Insurance Company.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant produced the original letter received from the Surveyor who made the enquiry alongwith the original letter issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur. She contended that if the District Forum had slightest doubt about the authenticity of the photostat copies, there wasno difficulty in placing on record the original report submitted by the Surveyor alongwith the original letter issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur. We have carefully considered the material on record. In our view, the District Forum fell into a grave error in placing reliance on the so- called original driving licence, especially when there was a positive report of the Surveyor on the basis of the verification letter issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur that the licence in question had not been issued by their office. As against the categorical verification certificate and report of the Surveyor, no evidence from the office of Licensing Authority, Raipur, had been produced by the complainant, that the licence in question was genuine. It is interesting that the original letter issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur, placed on record during the appeal does not contain any cutting even in the subject title of the letter issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur. Even in the copy produced before the District Forum, the cutting was only in respect of the licence No. in the subject title, but the licence No. was again expressly set out in the body of the letter which did not contain any cutting. In the absence of the cogent material, let alone in the certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, Raipur that the licence in question was genuine one, no reliance could be placed on the original; driving licence. Placing reliance on the original driving licence when its authenticity was in question was totally unjustified and the District Forum clearly misdirected itself by accepting the licence as genuine in the face of the express report made by the Licensing Authority that no such licence had been issued by their office. The effect of p ossessing an invalid licence by the person driving vehicle at the time of accident is well settled. Reference in this connection be made to the following decisions: (1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadav Narender Bhai Jetha Bhai, I (1996) CPJ 230 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer 1873 (NS). (2) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Yaswant Ghatge, I (1996) CPJ 276 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer 1901. (3) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surendra Dutt Bhandari, I (1994) CPJ 168 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer 21-27. (4) M/s. Esma Felts Pvt. Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 1986-96 Consumer 2577 (NS). (5) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok, II (1995) CPJ 208 (NC)=1986-96 Consumer 2672.

The above mentioned authorities deal both with the question of possessing an invalid driving licence on the date of accident but also the effect getting an otherwise fake driving licence renewed on payment of the prescribed fee. It has been laid down that a fake licence is non-est and its subsequent renewal does not validate it. These decisions also include cases where a driver held a valid licence but failed to get the same renewed within 30 days, the time limit prescribed under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act and was not otherwise disqualified from holding a valid licence. In all these cases it was held that the Insurance Company was entitled to repudiate the liability.

FOR these reasons, the appeal must succeed and the same is allowed, order of the District FORum is set aside. As a result, the complaint filed by respondent No. 1, before the District FORum stands dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties as also to the District FORum-II. Appeal allowed.