WORLDLINK FINANCE LTD. vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THE only question arising in this appeal is as to the liability of the Insurance Company when the insured vehicle was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid driving licence Mitsubishi bus belonging to M/s. World link Finance Ltd. was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for the period 9.3.1990 to 8.3.1991. THE bus was given by the complainant under hire-purchase to one Paul Singh. THE bus met with an accident on 12.8.1990 and according to the complainant, the loss suffered amounting to Rs; 1,96,000/-. Claim made to the Insurance Company was repudiated on the ground that the insured had committed a breach of the terms of the policy inasmuch as the vehicle was allowed to be driven by a person whose driving licence upon verification was found to be fake. THE matter was entrusted by the Insurance Company to M/s. Associate Surveyors & Consultants who, on enquiry from the Licencing Authority, Sagar, reported vide their communication dated 19/ 12.4.1993 that Driving Licence No. 6415/20 Badge No. 6/88 purporting to have been issued by the Licencing Authority, Sagar had never been issued and driving licence produced was, therefore, fake. On the basis of the said report, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. THE case of the complainant was, (a) that the said licence had been duly renewed by the concerned Authority of Jammu and in any case, at the time of employing the driver of the vehicle he produced a driving licence and had a clean driving record of eight preceding years and he was employed under the bana fide belief that the licence must be genuine; (b) that the Insurance Company had failed to settle the claim for a period of nearly two years and this by itself, constituted deficiency in service.

ON a consideration of the matter, the District Forum held that the complainant had failed to prove that the driver had a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Nevertheless the Insurance Company was held liable for deficiency in service in causing delay in repudiating the claim. Accordingly, the District Forum awarded Rs. 5,000/-as compensation against the Insurance Company besides Rs. 1,000/- as costs but in substance, upheld the plea of the Insurance Company that the claim had been repudiated after application of mind. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. A reply has been filed by the respondent Insurance Company We have heard Mr. V.N. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records. Mr. V.N. Sharma contended that the report of the Surveyor on the basis of the alleged enquiry from he Licensing Authority had not been formally proved and could not be treated as evidence in the case. It was pointed out that as against the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, no affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent either of the Surveyor who held the enquiry or of a person who is reported to have corresponded with the Surveyor and is supposed to have received the said reply. Mr. Sharma further submitted that at the time of appointment of the driver, the hirer of the vehicle Mr. Paul Singh had examined the driving licence and he had given the appointment to the driver in good faith after exercising reasonable care and caution. The said driver had worked with Paul Singh for a period of two years before the occurrence of the accident. The driver had held die licence for about eight years during which he had not caused any accident.

On behalf of the Insurance Company, on the other hand, it has been contended that the enquiry was entrusted to the Surveyor who, after verifying from the concerned Authority reported that the driving licence was a fake one. It was pointed out that there was no practice of proving the documents produced in the case in a formal manner like the one adopted in the Civil Courts, In any case, it was open to the complainant to have led evidence to show that the driving licence held by the driver at the material time was a genuine one. Lastly, it was submitted that it is settled law that if a fake licence is got renewed, the renewed licence will not validate the fake licence and such renewal is of no consequence.

HAVING considered the respective contentions, we have no hesitation in saying that documents are not required to be proved formally like it is done in the Civil Courts. Where a document produced by one party is challenged by the other party, adequate opportunity is given to the party concerned to produce material in this behalf. It is on a consideration of the material placed on record including the affidavits that the matter is decided. Applying that principle, it was open to the complainant to have produced positive evidence that the driving licence relied upon in the present case was not fake, but had been issued by a Competent Authority. No such evidence was produced. It is of no consequence that the driver had not caused any accident during the preceding eight years or that the employer had satisfied himself that the licence held by the driver was a genuine one. When question of liability of the Insurance Company is raised, it is certainly open to the Insurance Company to plead that the driving licence is not a genuine one. In such a situation it is the bounden duty of the complainant to show that the licence was a genuine one. It is settled law that a driving licence which is not genuine does not become a genuine one by its renewal. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadav Narinder Bhai Jetha Bhai, I (1996) CPJ 230 (NC), the National Commission held that when on the date of accident the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective and valid driving licence, the Insurance Company was fully justified, in repudiating the claim. To the same effect is a decision of this Commission in Surinder Sethi v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (1997) CPJ 210. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company, in the facts and circumstances, cannot be held to be deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. If so advised, the complainant may approach the Civil Court for relief, if any, according to law. For the delay in deciding the case, the Insurance Company has already been burdened with compensation and the Insurance Company does not appear to have filed any appeal. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties as well as District Forum II. Appeal dismissed.