State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Manohar Lal Trilok Chand on 20 February, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 20.02.2008 Appeal No. A-08/30 (Arising out of Order dated 08.10.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum(Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 849/2003) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellants Through The Regional Manager, Through Regd. Office, Oriental House, Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Advocate New Delhi 110002. The Senior Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office 18, Shahpuri Tirath Singh Tower, 6th Floor, C-58, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058. Versus M/s Manohar Lal Trilok Chand Respondent Through its Partner, Manohar Lal, S/o Late Ram Chander, AG-458, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi 110042. CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. Vide impugned order dated 08.10.2007 passed by the District Forum, the appellant-company has been directed to pay Rs. 73,799/- towards the cost of repairs of the vehicle damaged in accident with interest @ 9% from 09.01.2003 till realization and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The relevant facts leading to the impugned order, in brief, are that the respondent got his truck No. NL-01-A 2665 insured with appellants vide comprehensive Insurance Policy No. 4303/2002 effective from 20.07.2001 to 19.07.2002. The truck met with an accident on 09.05.2002 at 10.oo a.m. with another truck UP-17-5117 within the jurisdiction of Distt. Khiri(UP). The truck was damaged and the driver of insured truck Sh. Kuldeep Singh died on the spot. The matter was reported to Police. Appellant was also informed. The respondent filed the estimate of Rs. 1,85,000/- for the repair of the insured truck with appellant but it approved a total claim of Rs. 73,799/- which includes Rs. 71,299/- as repair charges and Rs.
2500/- as towing charges. The respondent in order to avoid delay, accepted the offer of appellant. But later on, appellant repudiated the claim of respondent on frivolous ground. The respondent prayed for directions to appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 73,799/- with interest, cost and compensation.
3. While justifying the repudiation of the claim of the respondent, the appellant pleaded that the respondent furnished copies of two driving license of the driver of insured vehicle. 1st driving license was issued by RTA Faridabad vide No. D 94680 dated 13.07.2001 valid upto 12.07.2004 (old No. 840 dated 14.07.98). Second driving license was issued by Transport Authority Nalbari, Assam. The number of license of Nalbari was F/422/NB/2002 dated 31.12.98 valid upto February, 2002. On enquiry, the license issued by RTA was found to be fake. Hence the claim of respondent was rejected vide letter dated 09.01.2003. Appellant denied any deficiency in service on its part. Appellant prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. At the outset, it may be stated that the question of second driving license being issued simultaneously has been stated by the District forum and the appellant has no dispute that the earlier license had expired and socalled second license produced was a renewed license.
5. In support of the contention that if the license issued by an authority is found to be fake, the Insurance Company is entitled to repudiate the claim, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the latest judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Meena Varain 2007 5 SCC 428 that if a license is found to be false, the insurance company is not liable to compensate.
6. After scanning through the aforesaid judgments, we find that the Supreme Court has only confined to this aspect while in respect of third party claim after distinguishing between such claims and in the latest judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Laxmi Narain Dhutt III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC) that the decision in Swaran Singh case was not applicable in such cases.
7. We have discussed all the judgments by the Supreme Court and found in one of the recently decided case and come to conclusion that wherever a claim arises of damages of the vehicle, it has to be ascertained on different premise.
However, at the same time, we have held that the onus is upon the insurance company to prove that the license was a forged license and to prove this the insurance company is bound to produce a certificate from the Regional Transport Authority that such a license was neither issued by them and appears to be a forged license not on the premise of the oral enquiry made by the investigator or surveyor or official or clerk of the transport authority and then inform the company that on oral enquiry found that the license was fake license.
8. However, in the instant case, the District Forum had occasion to see the letter sent by the insurance company to the RTO Faridabad that the report of license office dated 11.09.2007 was totally ambiguous. The previous number of driving license was also printed on the back of driving license copy. No affidavit was filed by the officer who was deputed for verification and therefore we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the District Forum.
9. Even otherwise the old number of driving license issued by the RTA Faridabad bears the original date of issuance 14.07.98 while driving license issued by authority at Nalbari bears the date 31.12.98. Thus it was the driving license issued by RTA Faridabad earlier to license issued by RTA Nalbari. Sometimes a driver obtains another license from different licensing authority because of permit of the vehicle being confined to particular State or so, and therefore, the claim of the respondent was wrongly repudiated.
10. The purpose of issuing a driving license is to ensure the skill and capability of a driver to drive a particular vehicle and to expect an employer to first make investigation and enquiry from the authorities issuing the driving license is not called for. An employer employs the driver after seeing his driving license and seeing his skill for driving a particular vehicle. If a driver had been driving a vehicle for many years and had also not committed any accident, he cannot be presumed to be an unskilled driver.
11. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, we do not find any fault with the finding returned by the District Forum nor do we find any infirmity in the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
12. The appeal is dismissed.
13. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
14. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.
15. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
16. Announced on 20h day of February, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc