National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Reena Rani Behera And Ors. on 21 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2007)CPJ478(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondent, complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that complainant owned a Tipper, which was insured with the appellant for the period from 4.2.1997 to 3.2.1998 for Rs. 6,50,000. On 5.6.1997, the said tipper met with an accident. The incident was reported to the police as also to the appellant Insurance Company, who appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 3,11,350 yet the appellant Insurance Company, repudiated the claim on the ground that the driving licence of the driver, namely, Mr. Pradip Mandalia was 'fake', hence in actual sense, he had no driving licence. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay the assessed amount of Rs. 3,11,350 along with interest @ 17.5% with cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per Annexure A/ 8 on record, the orginal licence No. 1060/95-96 CK was issued to Pabitra Mandalia, but it also shows another original driving licence No. 4168/90 issued by L.A., Indore (MP), as per record of the Licensing Authority. R.T.O., Indore, on inquiry, has clarified as per Annexure A-9, that the name of the driver holding driving licence No. 4168/90 relates to one Purshottam Das and was meant for driving 'motorcycle' only. He also drew our attention to Exhibit A-13, in which R.T.O., Indore, has again clarified that the Driving Licence No. 4168 was issued to Shri Purshottam Das and not to Pradip Mandalia. It is his plea that since the licence was 'fake' which in fact meant that the driver had no driving licence. In these circumstances, State Commission erred in allowing the complaint as the driving licence of the driver was a fake, hence had no licence to drive, thus it was a case of an accident resulting from a vehicle driven by a driver, having no licence, and in this situation, the appellant cannot be asked to indemnify the loss. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the State Commission in toto in this regard.
4. After hearing both the learned Counsel, we find that there are two issues involve in this case, one-the issue of fake licence and secondly, the effect of that, in this case.
5. It is admitted position and also admitted before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the documents shown as Annexures A-8, A-9 and A-13, relied upon by the appellant, have not been proved by anyone by way of affidavit of the Authority/ persons who issued these certificates. It has been held severally by us that an unproved documents which can have material bearing in the case, shall have no bearing on the case. In view of above, we are unable to accept these documents and shall attach no importance to these documents.
6. Coming to the second leg of the case, i.e., effect of fake licence in this case, we like to reproduce what the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to say on this point in the case of United India Insurance Company v. Lehru and Ors. :
When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. if the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that Insurance Companies expect owners to make inquiries with RTOs which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. It if ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the Insurance Company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case the Insurance Company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skanadia's Sohan Lal Passi's and Kamla's cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and seen no reason to take a different view.
(Emphasis supplied)
7. In view of above, we specifically asked the learned Counsel for the appellant any evidence brought on record to substantiate, that the factum of alleged fake licence was within the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle? Nothing could be shown to us in this regard. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above, we find no merit in the second point as well.
8. In the light of above, we see no merit in the appeal filed before us except we find that the rate of interest granted by the State Commission, i.e., 17.5% p.a., is found to be high, even though it relates to the year 1997 and Bank had been charging high interest rate from the complainant, which as per settled law on the subject, we reduce to 12% p.a. Only to this extent the appeal is allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
No order as to costs.