State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jitendra Dewangan vs D.M., The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. on 1 April, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/14/413
Instituted on : 16.06.2014
Jitendra Dewangan, S/o Sohan Lal Dewangan,
Age 39 years, R/o : Village : Kodagaon,
Tehsil & Police Station Kanker,
District North Bastar (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Divisional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office : M.B. Trade Centre,
Second Floor, Near Gandhi Chowk,
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri B.M. Yadav, for the appellant.
Shri P.K. Paul, for the respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 01/04/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.23/2013. By the impugned order, the complaint of the appellant (complainant) has been dismissed.
//2 //
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle Metador 709 bearing registration No.C.G.04-G-8528. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent (O.P.) for the period from 20.11.2012 to 19.11.2013. On 14.12.2012 the said vehicle met with an accident in National Highway No.30 Main Road due to which a person namely Sadhuram sustained grievous injury and after the accident the vehicle was burnt due to accident and it was damaged completely. Police Station, Gurur registered Crime Case No.280/12 against the driver of the vehicle in question, Minesh Kumar. The appellant (complainant) immediately gave intimation regarding the incident to the respondent (O.P.). The respondent (O.P.) appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- and submitted his report to the respondent (O.P.). The respondent (O.P.) repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) on the ground that the licence of driver Minesh Kumar, which was produced was mainly transferred from Raipur RTO to Kanker RTO and original licence No. is M/8957/R/2008 which was verified from RTO Raipur and it was found fake, whereas driving licence No.M/8957/R/2008 was mainly issued from RTO Durg on 02.07.2010 and thereafter in the above licence, for transport vehicle endorsement was done on 23.10.2010 by R.T.O. Kanker. The respondent (O.P.) repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) even then the driver was having valid and effective driving licence, which comes within deficiency in service.
//3 //
3. The respondent (O.P.) filed written statement and averred that as per R.C. book the insured vehicle is Light Goods Vehicle. At the time of insurance, the value of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.2,25,000/-. The insured vehicle was 9 years old and the compensation is payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. In case of damage of the vehicle, the assessment of loss to the vehicle is done by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company and according to it the amount of compensation is determined. Depreciation is also charged on the parts of the vehicle. After submitting report of the surveyor, the assessment of the loss could not be determined because the appellant (complainant) had not deposited the old parts which were replaced. At the time of incident, 100 bags of the paddy were loaded in the vehicle in question. Only licence holder driver are authorized to drive Light Good Vehicle. Driver Minesh Sahu was not authorized to drive the vehicle in question. The driving licence No.M/8957/R/2008 was not issued by R.T.O. Raipur and the said driving licence was transferred to R.T.O. Kanker where the driving licence was renewed. The original driving licence was fake, therefore, its subsequent valid renewals, cannot validate a fake licence. If a fake licence is renewed, it will still remain fake. The driver Minesh Kumar was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and he was driving the vehicle without valid and effective driving licence, therefore, appellant (complainant) has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The claim of the appellant (complainant) was repudiated by the respondent (O.P.) due to //4 // violation of terms and conditions of the policy by the appellant (complainant). The respondent (O.P.) has not committed any deficiency in service, hence the complaint be dismissed with cost.
4. After having considered the material placed before it by both the parties, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint.
5. The appellant (complainant) has filed documents. Document Annexure 1 is claim repudiation letter dated 25.07.2013, Annexure 2 is driving licence of Minesh Sahu, Annexure 3 is Extract of Driving Licence No.CG19/2008/0000495 of Minesh Sahu, Annexure - 4 is Motor Insurance Certificate Cum Policy Schedule, Annexure 5 is Goods vehicle licence, Annexure 6 is challan in respect of payment of road tax, Annexure 7 is Certificate of Fitness, Annexure 8 is Certificate of Registration, Annexure 9 is Final Report, Annexure 10 is First Information Report, Annexure 11 is Dehati Pratham Suchna Patra, Annexure 12 is darkhwasta waste mulahija jakhmi shakhs ke, injury report, Annexure 13 is Crime Details Form, Annexure 14 is property seizure memo, Annexure 15 is Property Seizure Memo, Extract of driving licence of Minesh Sahu issued by the Addl. RTO, Durg.
6. The respondent (O.P.) has also filed documents. Annexure A is Motor Insurance Certificate Cum Policy Schedule GCCV Public Carriers Other Than Three Wheelers, Annexure B is driving licence of Minesh Sahu, Annexure C is Verification Report dated 18.03.2013 submitted by Shri Mohd. Ebrahim, Insurance Investigator, Annexure D is letter dated //5 // 18.03.2013 sent by Shri Mohd. Ebrahim, Investigator to the respondent (O.P.), Annexure E is letter dated 18.03.2013 sent by R.T.O. Raipur, Annexure F is Extract of Driving Licence of Minesh Sahu issued by DTO Kanker, Annexure G is Certificate of Registration, Annexure H is Property Seizure Memo, Annexure I is internet generated extract of driving licence of Minesh Sahu, issued by RTO, Kanker, Final Report, First Information Report, Dehati Pratham Suchna Patra, darkhwasta waste mulahija jakhmi shakhs ke, Crime Details Form, property seizure memo.
7. Shri B.M. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant complainant has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is contrary to law. He has further argued that at the time of the incident, the driver of the vehicle Minesh Kumar was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, but even then the respondent (O.P.) has repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant) had committed deficiency in service. The appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the respondent (O.P.). He further argued that the original driving licence was issued from R.T.O. Durg and verification was done from R.T.O. Raipur. At the time of appointment of Minesh Kumar as driver, the appellant (complainant) has checked the driving licence of the driver and found that the driving licence was issued from R.T.O. Durg He further argued that if subsequently, the driving licence of driver Minesh Kumar was found fake, then the appellant (complainant) cannot be held responsible for the //6 // same. The appellant (complainant) is entitled to get compensation from the respondent (O.P.).
8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that the driver Minesh Kumar was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question which is light goods vehicle. He further argued that according to the appellant (complainant) the driver Minesh Kumar was having two driving licences at the relevant time, therefore, driver Minesh Kumar committed offence under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and he was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the respondent (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that if a fake licence is renewed, it will still remain fake. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2014) CPJ 325 (NC); Jai Prakash Goyal vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd, II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Shivakumara S. II (2014) CPJ 57 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar; IV (2013) CPJ 1 (NC); Seema Garg vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC); Vimla & Anr. Vs. Aadil Khan, IV (2013) CPJ 97 (NC); Sandeep Kumar //7 // vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II (2014) CPJ 505 (NC).
9. We have heard arguments of both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. The appellant (complainant) has filed photocopy of driving licence of driver Minesh Sahu, which is marked as Annexure - 2, whereas the respondent (O.P.) has also filed photocopy of driving licence of Minesh Kumar (Schedule B), which was issued by Licensing Authority, Raipur. From bare perusal of Schedule B, it appears that driving licence No.M/8957/R/2008 was issued from RTO, Raipur. In document Annexure -2 the number of driving licence is mentioned as CG 19 20080000495 and date of its issuance is mentioned as 02.07.2008 and it is valid till 22.10.2013 for transport vehicle and it is valid for non- transport vehicle till 01.07.2028. In Schedule B, the driving licence No. is mentioned as M/8957/R/08 and date of issuance is mentioned as 02.07.2008. In the said driving licence it is mentioned that driving licence was issued for driving Motor Cycle with Gear, Light Motor vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle, Heavy Passenger motor vehicle. In document Annexure 3 which is Extract of Driving Licence of Minesh Sahu, which has been filed by the appellant (complainant), it is mentioned thus :-
//8 // D) Current Details Valid upto NT : 01/07/2028 TR 20.10.2013 Haz Vld. to Sl.No. Catg. COV COV iss dt. Office Driving Tested Test Badge Badge code Test dt. by Result No issue dt.
1. NT MCWG 02.07.2008 CG 04
2. NT LMV 02.07.2008 CG 04
3. TR TRANS 23.10.2010 CG 19
11. From bare perusal of the Extract of Driving Licence (Annexure 3) it appears that the office code for RTO Raipur is CG 04. The RTO Raipur issued a letter dated 18.03.2013 (Schedule E) in which it is specifically mentioned that driving licence No.M/8957/R/08 was not issued from R.T.O. Raipur. From bare perusal of Extract of driving licence it appears that driving licence was not issued by RTO Durg therefore, it is not required for the respondent (O.P.) to be verified from RTO Durg. In driving licence Code CG 19 is mentioned which is office code for RTO Kanker and office code CG 04 is for Raipur.
12. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prithvi Raj, I (2008) CPJ 33 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"10. In the instant case, the State Commission has categorically found that the evidence on record clearly established that the Licensing Authority had not issued any licence, as was claimed by the Driver and the respondent. The evidence of Shri A.V.V. Rajan, Junior Assistant of the office of the Jt. Commissioner and Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad who produced the official records clearly established that no driving licence was issued to Shri Ravinder Kumar or Ravinder Singh in order to enable and legally permit him to drive a motor vehicle. There was no //9 // cross-examination of the said witness. The National Commission also found that there was no defect in the finding recorded by the State Commission in this regard.
13 In Sanjay Kumar Gupta vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. 2008 (4) CPR 160, this Commission has observed that when Driving licence of driver of vehicle was found fake - Repudiation of claim did not constitute any deficiency-in-service.
14. It appears that the driving licence No. M/8957/R/08 was not issued by Licensing Authority, RTO, Raipur. It appears that the said driving licence is a fake document. Both the parties have filed driving lice of driver Minesh Sahu. It appears that driver Minesh Sahu was having two driving licences.
15. In Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd. vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission observed that "Driver employed by petitioner was having two driving licences at relevant time. Offence committed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Driving licence not valid and effective." In para 14, it has further been observed that "It is an admitted fact, that the driver employed by the petitioner was having two driving licences at the relevant time. We fail to understand as to how a person can have two different driving licences issued by two different transport authorities at one time".
//10 //
16. In Jai Prakash Goyal vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission "Driving licence - Validity of - driving vehicle at accident time holding two licences - Holding of two licences prohibited under law - First licence submitted on record found fake - Second licence invalid for all practical purposes - Vehicle overloaded at accident time - Driver holding two licences within knowledge of petitioner - Violation of policy conditions and provisions of law proved - Insurance Company not liable to indemnify the loss."
17. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Davinder Singh, 2008 ACJ 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "Driving licence
- Fake licence - Repudiation of claim - Driver originally had a fake licence which got renewed - Forum under Consumer Protection Act mulcted liability on the insurance company - Whether insurance company is liable for the claim of the owner of the vehicle in regard to losses sustained by him where licence of his driver has been found fake but got renewed - Held : No; renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence." In para 16 it has further been held that "Different considerations would arise in a case of this nature, as the Consumer Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was concerned only with a question as to whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant or not. A right on the part of the insurance company not to pay the amount of insurance would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It in certain situation may be bound to pay the claim made by the third party, if the same is //11 // filed before a forum created under Motor Vehicles Act. But defence may be held to be justified before a different forum where the question raised is required to be considered in a different manner".
18. In the instant case the driver of the vehicle in question Minesh Kumar was having two licences at the relevant time, which comes within breach of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the instant case, it is not established that the R.T.O. Raipur has issued the driving licence in favour of the driver Minesh Kumar and it is clear that the licence of driver Minesh Kumar is fake. In instant case the driving licence of the driver Minesh Kumar was initially fake, therefore, its subsequent valid renewals cannot validate a fake licence. If a fake licence is renewed, it will still remain fake.
19. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the District Forum is reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality and does not call for any interference by this Commission.
20. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S.Sharma) (Ms.Heena Thakkar)
President Member
/04/2015 /04/2015