State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Jagdamba Power & Alloy Ltd. vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 27 March, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2016/67
Instituted on : 07.11.2016
M/s. Jagdamba Power and Alloys Limited,
Through : Director Niket Khandelwal, Aged 44 years,
S/o : Shri Rajendra Kumar Khandelwal,
G-16, Heera Arcade, New Bus Stand, Pandri,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Krishna Complex,
First Floor, Kutchery Chowk,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Opposite Party
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate, for the O.P.
ORDER
Dated : 27 /03/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainants have filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. seeking following reliefs :-
(a) The O.P. be directed to pay a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs), which is insured value of the total damaged vehicle along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the claim i.e.06.02.2013 till date of actual payment.
// 2 //
(b) To direct the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) towards transport expenses and other financial losses and Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand), which was spent for arranging another vehicle on hire along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the claim till date of actual payment.
(c) The O.P. be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) towards compensation for mental agony.
(d) To direct the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupes Ten Thousand) towards cost of litigation and to grant any other relief, which the Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant purchased an Ashok Leyland Truck Trailer bearing registration No.C.G.04-J.C.6118 in the year 2012 with the financial help of Srei Equipments Finance Limited for transportation of coal which is used in the plant which is being operated by the complainant for self employment and his livelihood. For covering the damages /loss to be occurred in future to the above vehicle, the above vehicle was got insured. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.37,240/- towards premium to the O.P. Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.24,00,000/-. The O.P. issued Insurance Policy No.190500/31/12/01/00002367 which was valid for the period from // 3 // 19.05.2012 to 18.05.2013. On 02.01.2013, after loading the Coal from the Gevra Mines, the driver of the above trailer was coming to Bilaspur, then near Rainpur Barrier, a dumper which was coming from the Bilaspur dashed the vehicle of the complainant, due to which the vehicle of the complainant became uncontrolled and turtled in the field. The driver and helper of the vehicle in question sustained injuries and the vehicle was badly damaged and came in the category of total damage. The incident was reported to Police Station Ratanpur and intimation regarding the incident was also given to the O.P. After completing the legal formalities, as per the instructions of the O.P., the complainant had taken his damaged vehicle to the nearest authorised workshop Gulf Ashley Motor Limited, Korba, where after examination of the damaged vehicle, the Gulf Ashley Motor Limited had given estimate dated 12.01.2013 for Rs.20,05,577/-. The complainant submitted the above estimate and the documents as directed by the O.P., to the O.P. on 06.02.2013. The complainant was looking for settlement of his claim and contacted to the office of the O.P. and he was assured that his claim would be settled at the earliest. On 25.04.2014, the complainant requested the O.P. to settle his claim at the earliest in response to which vide letter dated 02.05.2014 the O.P. again demanded documents whereas the relevant documents have already been provided to the O.P. In the above letter, the O.P. directed the complainant to inform its previous insurer National // 4 // Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata, who issued Insurance Policy No.154300/44/11/96000 for the period from 31.05.2011 to 30.12.2012, which was already expired before the incident. It is clear that on the basis of afterthought, the O.P. was involved in making effort to unnecessarily keep pending the genuine claim of the complainant. The complainant approached the O.P, and raised his grievances, but the O.P. did not settle his claim. In spite of lapse of more than two years, the O.P. did not settle the claim of the complainant, therefore, on 22.04.2015 the complainant submitted an application under R.T.I. Act before the O.P. and demanded information regarding his claim. From the documents received under the R.T.I., the complainant came to know that vide letter dated 20.06.2014, the O.P. treated the claim as no claim on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence, whereas such information had not been received by the complainant. The complainant appeared before the O.P. and requested to consider his claim sympathetically. In spite of lapse of long period, the O.P. did not provide any help to the complainant. The act of the O.P. comes in the category of deficiency in service. The complainant sent registered notice to the O.P. through advocate and demanded to settle his claim and to pay the claim amount. The O.P. received the above notice but O.P. did not give reply to the above notice and also did not the claim amount, due to which the total damage vehicle is still kept in the same condition from the date of incident i.e. // 5 // 02.01.2013 till today. The complainant compelled to unnecessarily bear Rs.80,000/- per month towards additional transport expenses of the coal. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint.
3. The O.P. has filed its written statement and averred that the complainant did not purchase truck trailer bearing registration No.C.G.04-JC-6118 and for self employment and earning livelihood for transportation of the coal used in his plant. Actually the complainant is a commercial institution, which is doing commercial work in large scale in the name of "Heera Group" in the Chhattisgarh as well as in India and Jagdamba Power and Alloy Limited is sister concern of the above institution, which is a company and is doing large scale business. The complainant is a commercial institution. The complainant obtained Insurance Policy No.1905003112P176063116 from the O.P. for the period from 19.05.2012 to 18.05.2013. In the Driver Clause of the insurance policy, it is mentioned thus :-
"Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive :
Any person including Insured provided that a person holds an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the personal holding an effective Learner's Licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989."
In the complaint and affidavit, the insurance policy no. and its period has been mentioned, had been issued by Genesis Software and // 6 // now the above software has been changed in G.C. Core System. The previous no. of the insurance policy of the vehicle truck trailer bearing registration No.C.G.04-J.C-6118 i.e. 190500/31/12/01/00002387 was changed to 1905003112P176063116. The complainant purchased the heavy goods vehicle for transporting business and the vehicle was registered and insured as transporting vehicle. According to the insurance policy, the person who is driving the vehicle in question is required to possess valid and effective driving licence. The above condition is substance of the insurance policy contract and the conditions are binding on both the parties. The incident took place on 02.01.2013 whereas the claim form had been submitted on 06.02.2013 The complainant gave intimation regarding the incident to the O.P. after one month, which indicates that the complainant changed the facts and damages to the vehicle and the act of the complainant is violation of insurance contract, therefore, the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On being received the claim form and estimate from the complainant, the O.P. appointed Shri Rajeev Dausage, who is an independent and duly licenced Surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle and to submit report. The Surveyor inspected the vehicle in the presence of the representative of the complainant and submitted his report dated 10.08.2013. From the report of the Surveyor it came to know the vehicle suffered loss to the tune of Rs.9,21,480/- and the salvage value was Rs.80,000/- it means // 7 // that in case salvage is not provided to the Insurance Company, then Rs.8,41,480/- was payable but with an intention to gain profit, the complainant shown it total loss. The Surveyor also mentioned that the complainant did not produce load challan of the vehicle and also not started repairing of the vehicle during inspection by dismantling the same, whereas it is very necessary and important work for assessment of the loss. Therefore, not providing assistance for analysis of the claim, is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. In the claim form the complainant mentioned that at the time of incident the vehicle was being driven by Sudul Singh who was having driving licence no.S/63221/A/91 issued on 10.03.1999, issued by R.T.O. Allahabad and the date of expiry of period of licence is mentioned as 21.12.2013. The complainant was directed to produce final bill/cash memo, load challan, legible copy of the driving licence, intimation letter etc. but the complainant did not supply the same to the O.P. After receiving the claim form and driving licence, its correctness was got verified by the O.P. from Licensing Authority, Allahabad, who gave information in Form No.54 that as per record of the office, the DL No.S-63221/A/99, was not issued in the name of Sudul Singh. After receiving the above report from the R.T.O. Allahabad, the O.P. vide letter dated 20.06.2014 informed the complainant that the Licensing Authority, Allahabad told that Licence No.S-63221/A/99 of driver Sudul Singh is not valid, therefore, due to violation of the terms and // 8 // conditions of the policy, the claim was treated as no claim. The O.P. did not commit deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure 1 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration no.C.G.04-JC- 6118, Annexure 2 is Goods Carrying (Other Than 3 - WH) Package Policy, Annexure 3 is First Information Report (Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.), Annexure 4 is Estimate given by Gulf Ashley Motor Limited, Annexure 5 is Motor Claim Form, Annexure 6 is letter dated 02.05.2014 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure 7 is application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 22.04.2015 moved by Dinesh Tiwari before The Public Information Officer, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur, Annexure 8 is letter dated 05.05.2015 sent by United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Officer, Raipur to Shri Dinesh Tiwari along with Motor Claim Form, Estimate and Investigation Report of Shri Shad Ahmad, Investigator, Annexure 9 is legal notice dated 04.07.2016 sent by Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate to the O.P. and postal receipt.
5. The O.P. has filed documents. Document OP-1 is GCV Public Carrier Other Than 3 Wheeler Package Policy, OP-2 is Motor Claim Form, OP-3 is Motor Survey Report dated 10.08.2013, of Shri Rajiv Dausage, OP-4 is Driving Licence of Sudul Singh, OP-5 is letter dated 25.04.2014 sent by the complainant to the O.P., OP-6 is letter dated // 9 // 02.05.2014 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, OP-7 is Accident Information Report, OP-8 is letter dated 05.05.2014 sent by Shri Shad Ahmad, Investigator to the Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Allahabad, OP-9 is letter dated 20.06.2014 sent by the O.P. to the complainant. The O.P. has also filed documents i.e. Accident Information Report, letter dated 09.01.2012 sent by Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Allahabad to the Licensing Authority, Divisional Transport Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Allahabad, driving licence of Sudul Singh and Investigation Report dated 30.01.2017 of Shri Shad Ahmad, Investigator.
6. Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the complainant is owner of truck trailer bearing registration No.C.G.04-JC-6118. The complainant obtained Insurance Policy No.190500/31/12/01/00002367 from the O.P. which was valid for the period from 19.05.2012 to 18.05.2013. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle is Rs.24,00,000/-. On 02.01.2013, after loading the Coal from the Gevra Mines, the driver of the vehicle in question was coming to Bilaspur and when he reached near Rainpur Barrier, a dumper which was coming from the opposite direction dashed the vehicle of the complainant due to which the vehicle of the complainant became uncontrolled and turtle in the field. The driver and helper of the vehicle in question sustained // 10 // injuries and the vehicle was badly damaged and comes within purview of total loss. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Ratanpur and intimation was also given to the O.P. After completing legal formalities, the complainant submitted claim form along with relevant documents before the O.P. and the vehicle was taken to nearest authorized workshop Gulf Asley Motor Limited, Korba. Gulf Ashley Motor Limited gave estimate of Rs.20,05,577/- to the complainant. The complainant submitted the above estimate to the O.P. and requested the O.P. to settle his claim. On 25.04.2014, the complainant again requested the O.P. to settle his claim at the earliest but the O.P. again demanded documents from the complainant, whereas the relevant documents were already provided by the complainant to the O.P. The O.P. directed the complainant to inform his previous insurer National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata, who issued Insurance Policy No.154300/44/11/96000 for the period from 31.05.2011 to 30.12.2012. The O.P. has unnecessarily kept pending the claim of the complainant and did not settle his claim. The complainant submitted an application under R.T.I. Act before the O.P. on 22.04.2015 and demanded information regarding his claim. From the document received under R.T.I. , the complainant came to know that vide letter dated 20.06.2014, the O.P. treated the claim of the complainant as "No Claim"" on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence. The above finding of the O.P. is // 11 // erroneous. The driver of the vehicle in question was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The O.P. has wrongly treated the claim of the complainant as No Claim and thus committed deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint and the complainant is entitled to get reliefs, as prayed in the complaint. He placed reliance on United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru and Others - Appeal (Civil) 1959 of 2003 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.02.2003.
7. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. has argued that the complainant is a commercial institution, which is doing commercial work in large scale in the name of "Heera Group". Jagdamba Power and Alloy Limited is sister concern of the above institution, which is a limited company and is doing large scale business, therefore, the complainant is not "consumer". The driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The driving licence of driver of the vehicle in question was verified by the Investigator, who found that the above driving licence has not been issued by Licensing Authority, Allahabad. The O.P. appointed Rajeev Dausage as Surveyor for assessing the loss to the vehicle in question, who submitted his report and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9,21,480/- and the salvage was valued at Rs.80,000/-. The complainant suffered total loss of Rs.8,41,480/-. In the instant case, the driver of the vehicle in question // 12 // was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, which comes within fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. The O.P. has rightly treated the claim of the complainant as No Claim. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the documents filed by them in the complaint case.
9. Firstly we shall examine whether the complainant is consumer ?
10. It is admitted that the complainant is a Limited Company. The complainant filed copy of Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-JC-6118, in which it is mentioned that the said vehicle is registered in the name of "Jagdamba Power And Alloys Limited". The Goods Carrying (Other Than 3 - WH) Package Policy was issued by the O.P. in favour of M/s Jagdamba Power & Alloys Limited, C/o M/s Heera Arcade, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. It appears that the complainant is a commercial institution and the vehicle in question was purchased for its commercial use, but the insurance policy was obtained by the complainant for protection of its property.
// 13 //
11. In Ashish Vishwakarma Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others, II (2012) CPJ 169 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. It has also been held that the insured could not trade or carry out any commercial activity with regard to the insurance policy, being barred to do so under Section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938."
12. In The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. vs. Shri Bhavanam Srinivas Reddy, 1991 (2) CPR 144 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, observed thus :-
"3. The first point of objection raised by the Insurance Company before the State Commission and reiterated before us namely is that no dispute arising out of a contract of insurance can be made subject matter of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act. This contention cannot be sustained in view of decision of this Commission dated July 28, 1989 in Shri Umedilal Aggarwal v. United India Assurance Company Ltd., F.A. Nos.3 and 4 of 1989 (Reported in I (1991) CPJ-3, 1991 (1) CPR 217 (NC), wherein we have held as follows :-
"We find no merit in the contention put forward by the insurance company that a complaint relating to the failure on the part of the insurer to settle the claim of the insured within a reasonable time and the prayer for the grant of compensation in respect of such delay will not fall within the jurisdiction of the Redressal Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. The provision of facilities in connection with insurance has been specifically included within the scope of the express // 14 // 'service' by the definition of the said word contained in Section 2(i)(o) of the Act. Our attention was invited by Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the decision of the Queen's Bench in National Transit Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Customs and Central Excise Commissioner, (1975) (1) all England Reports Page 303) The observations contained in the said judgment relating to the scope of the expression 'insurance' occurring the schedule of the enactment referred to therein are of no assistance at all to us in this case because the context in which the expression is used in the English enactment considered in the case is entirely different. Having regard to the philosophy of the Consumer Protection Act and its avowed object of providing cheap and speedy redressal to consumers affected by the failure on the part of persons providing "service" for a consideration, we do not find it possible to hold that the settlement of insurance claims will not be covered by the expression "insurance" occurring in Section 2(1)(d). Whenever there is a default or negligence in regard to such settlement of an insurance claim that will constitute a 'deficiency' in the service on the part of the Insurance company and it will be perfectly open to the concerned aggrieved consumer to approach the Redressal Forums under the Act seeking appropriate relief. We, accordingly over the objection raised by the Insurance Company regarding the jurisdiction of the State Commission to adjudicate upon the complaint.
13. In The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. vs. Uma Devi, 1991 (1) CPR 662 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, observed thus :-
"8. The very fact that the Insurance Act provides for a machinery for remedy for grievances arising out of repudiation of a claim under section 45 leads to show that the Corporation has to satisfy a Court // 15 // that the repudiation was justified. Accordingly, it is for the consumer to choose a forum convenient to him to seek remedy for the loss suffered because of deficiency in service. As the provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force, the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to investigate whether the repudiation was justified or not and to grant such relief as deems fit if it is satisfied that there was deficiency in service. We therefore, cannot uphold this contention in view of the decision of this Commission in Revision Petition No.12 of 1990 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vipro Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 1991 (1) C.P.R. (NC) 531, where the identical point has been elaborately discussed".
14. In The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Vipro Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 1991 (1) C.P.R. (N.C.) 531, the Hon'ble National Commission, observed thus :
"We are not impressed with the contention raised by Shri S.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that merely because of Insurer had totally repudiated his liability in respect of the claim, no proceedings could be validly initiated under the Consumer Protection Act by the insurer. This contention squarely falls within the ruling given by this Commission in Ummedilal Agrawal v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (O.P.No.3 & 4 of 1989, decided on 28.7.1989". In that decision this Commission has observed that it is not possible to hold that settlement of a disputed insurance claim will not be covered by the expression "service" occurring in Section 2(d) of the Act. It was laid down that whenever there is default or negligence in regard to service that will constitute "deficiency in service" on the part of the insurer and it is perfectly open to the aggrieved party for seeking appropriate relief under the Act.
// 16 // In the result, the Revision Petition has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed".
15. In M/s. Harsolia Motors vs. M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2005 (1) CPR 1 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"13. In Halabury's Laws of England Vol. 25, 4th Edition, the origin and common principles of insurance is discussed and in paragraph 3 it has been discussed and in paragraph 3 it has been mentioned that it is based on principle of indemnity. Thereafter, relevant discussion is to the effect that most of contract of insurance belong to general category of contracts of indemnity. In the sense that insurers' liability is limited to the actual loss which is , in fact, proved. The contract is one of indemnity and, therefore, insured can recover the actual amount of loss and no more.
14. In this view of the matter, taking of the insurance policy is for protection of the interest of the assured in the articles or goods and not for making any profit or trading for carrying on commercial purpose.
16. We would refer to few relevant judgments :
In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98, the Court elaborately considered the provisions of Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) as well as earlier decisions and held that :-
"The combined reading of the definitions of 'consumer' and 'service' under the Act and looking at the aims and object for which the Act was enacted, it is imperative that the words "consumer" and "service" as defined under the Act should be construed to comprehend consumer and services of commercial // 17 // and trade-oriented nature only. Thus any person who is found to have hired services for consideration shall 'be deemed to be a consumer notwithstanding that the services were in connection with any goods or their user. Such services may be for any connected commercial activity and may also relate to the services as indicated in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act."
The aforesaid ratio makes it abundantly clear that the services may be for any connected commercial activity, yet it would be within the purview of the Act."
16. The insurance policy has been taken by the complainant for protection of the property and not for making any profit, therefore, the complainant is a "consumer" and dispute between the parties comes within purview of "consumer dispute".
17. The main objection raised by the O.P. is that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence, on the contrary, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the O.P. had not informed the complainant that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence and the complainant had also not been informed regarding the Investigation Report of the Investigator. The complainant approached the O.P. and requested the O.P. to settle the claim sympathetically. The affidavit of the Investigator has not been filed along with report of the Investigator, and subsequently affidavit has been filed, therefore, the report of the Investigator is not reliable.
// 18 //
18. The O.P. appointed Shad Ahmad as Investigator. The Investigator went to Licencing Branch, R.T.O. Allahabad for verification of driving licence of Sudul Singh and he submitted form No.54 Accident Information Report (document OP-7) before the Licensing Authority, Allahabad (U.P.). In document OP-7, it is mentioned thus :-
"R.I.O.
ewy :i ls okil djrs gq, voxr djkuk gS fd] D.L.No-
63221/A 99 lqnqy flag ds uke ls dk;kZy; vfHkys[kkuqlkj tkjh ugha gSA "
19. The Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Allahabad sent letter dated 09.01.2017 to Licensing Authority Office of Divisional Transport Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Allahabad in which it has been requested to verify the driving licence No.S-63221/A/99 of Sudul Singh and to give complete details in form No.54 and for the above purpose, Shad Ahmad has been authorised. On the basis of above letter, form No.54 was provided to Shad Ahmad. Shad Ahmad went to office of Licensing Authority and the above report was issued by the Licensing Authority, Allahabad (U.P.).
20. The O.P. filed affidavits of Janranjan Purohit, Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.1, Raipur (C.G.), Rajeev Dausage, Surveyor & Loss Assessor and // 19 // Shad Ahmad, Investigator. In para 2 of his affidavit, Shad Ahmad stated that United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Allahabad provided photocopy of driving licence of Sudul Singh and authorised him for getting the same verified from the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Allahabad. He further stated that he submitted an application before Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Allahabad (U.P.) for verification of driving licence No.S-63221/A/99 and after receiving the same, form No.54 was provided to him. The Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department gave report that driving licence No.S- 63221/A/99 was not issued in the name of Sudul Singh by Licensing Authority, Allahabad (U.P.).
21. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prem Lata Purohit, I (2017) CPJ 277 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus:-
"8. .....It has been held by this Commission in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company v. Smt. R. Suguna, IV (2013) CPJ 449 (NC), RP No.3266 of 2008, that the claim is admissible only, when the insured was possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In the event of not having such a licence there is apparently a violation of the terms and conditions of the 'Commercial Vehicle Package Policy"................"
// 20 //
22. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh 2008 (I) ACJ 1 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, section 147 (1) (a) (ii)- Motor insurance- Own damage claim- Driving licence- Fake licence- Repudiation of claim- Driver originally had a fake licence which was 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. [2007 ACJ 721 (SC) and 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC) followed: 2004 ACJ 1 (SC) distinguished]."
23. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj, 2008 (II) ACJ 733 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, section 149 (2) (a) (ii)- Motor insurance- Driving licence- Fake licence- Renewal of- Liability of insurance company- Insurance company repudiated the claim of owner of minibus which was damaged in accident on the ground that driver did not possess a valid driving licence- Owner approached the State Commission under Consumer Protection Act and took the stand that licence was validly and legally renewed, the claim could not have been repudiated by the insurance company- State Commission rejected the plea of owner holding that there was no valid licence- National Commission held that in view of the fact that there was renewal of driving licence, the claim could not have been refused by insurance company- Whether renewal of a fake driving licence does not transform it into ganuine and insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim- Held: yes, renewal cannot take away the effect // 21 // of fake licence; insurance company has no liability. [2001 ACJ 843 (SC) and 2007 ACJ 721 (SC) followed]."
24. In New India Ansurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhika Khan, III (2012) CPJ 620 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"7. We find substance in the submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner, Supreme Court, in Para 41 of Laxmi Narayan Dhut's case (supra) has held that in own damage cases, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the loss to the insured where original licence was fake. That renewal of the fake licence could not cure the inherent fatality. Relevant observations made by the Supreme Court read as under :-
"36. ...................
37. ....................
38. In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge :-
1. The decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra), has no application to cases other than third party risk.
2. Where originally the licence was a fake one, cannot cure the inherent fatality.
3. In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised to recover the same from the insured.
4. The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act. The High Courts/Commissions shall now consider the matter afresh in the light of the position in law as delineated above."
25. M/s Royal Goods Transport Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2016 (3) CPR 628 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
// 22 // "Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21- Insurance- Vehicle insurance- Damage to vehicle in accident- Non possession of valid and effective driving licence constitutes a fundamental breach of terms an conditions of policy and claim was not payable - There is no justification for allowing complaint because licence produced by driver of vehicle has been found to be a fake document on investigation- Revision petition dismissed."
26. In Tirupati Transport Corporation Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, I (2016) CPJ 12 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2 (1) (g), 21 (b)- Insurance- Accident of vehicle- Driving licence- Invalid- Violation of policy condition- Claim repudiated- Alleged deficiency in service- District Forum dismissed complaint- State Commission dismissed appeal- Hence revision- Wherever insured himself is claimant, Insurance Company not liable to reimburse him for damage caused to vehicle, if it is found that driver of vehicle did not possess valid licence at time of accident- Repudiation justified."
27. The complainant relied on United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru and Others (Supra), but the above cited judgement is relating to third party claim, therefore, the same is not helpful to the complainant.
28. The complainant has not filed any document in rebuttal of the Investigation Report of Shad Ahmad & the report issued by Licensing Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Allahabad. The Investigation // 23 // Report of Investigator Shad Ahmad, is duly supported by his affidavit. The complainant has not been able to rebut the report given by Shad Ahmad, Investigator, therefore, the report given by Shad Ahmad, is reliable. On the basis of investigation report of Shad Ahmad and report given by R.T.O. Allahabad, it appears that the driving licence No.63221/A/99, was not issued by the Licencing Authority, Allahabad, in the name of Sudul Singh, therefore, the same is fake driving licence. The vehicle in question was being driven by the driver, who was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, which comes within fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. The O.P. has rightly treated the claim of the complainant as no claim and by doing so, the O.P. did not commit any deficiency in service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
29. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.P., is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this complaint.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
27 /03/2017 27 /03/2017 27 /03/2017