State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Hazura Singh on 2 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1522 of 2010
Date of institution : 30.08.2010
Date of decision : 02.12.2013
1. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO
No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Manager
(Legal).
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Calibre Market,
Rajpura, District Patiala through its Branch Manager.
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chotti Baradari,
Patiala through its Senior Division Manager.
.......Appellants- Opposite Parties
Versus
Hazura Singh aged 65 years son of Shri Bakhtawar Singh, V.P.O.
Uppal Heir, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.
......Respondent-Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
28.7.2010 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri B.S. Taunque, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri R.K. Shukla, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
Hazura Singh, complainant/respondent, purchased one truck bearing registration No.HR-37-B-7792 (in short, "the vehicle") for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment and got the same comprehensively insured with the opposite parties-Insurance First Appeal No.1522 of 2010. 2 Company for the period 18.4.2008 to 17.4.2009 for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- after the payment of Rs.23,391/- as premium. For driving this vehicle, he engaged Jaswant Singh, driver and at that time he saw his driving licence, which appeared to be genuine and had been issued by the DTO, Patiala. He also took the road test of the driver, which proved to be O.K. At the time he obtained the policy, that driving licence was shown to the representative of the Insurance Company. The vehicle met with an accident on 18.1.2009 at Kishangar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan), when the same was being driven by the said driver and this accident was the result of the negligence of the driver of the other truck, who was driving the same on the wrong side of the road. The matter was reported to the police authorities as well as to the Insurance Company and it deputed Sanjay Kumar Jain, Surveyor, for spot inspection and thereafter for final survey, it appointed Mohan Inder Singh, Surveyor. A loss of Rs.2,50,000/- was caused to the truck and he submitted the relevant papers and completed all the formalities as desired by the Insurance Company and its surveyors. Thereafter he has been visiting its office repeatedly for receiving the claim amount but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the same was not payable due to the driving licence. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of directions to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as the insurance amount, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the accident till payment, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by him and Rs.25,000/- as cost of the complaint. First Appeal No.1522 of 2010. 3
2. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties- Insurance Company. In the written reply it admitted that the truck was got insured with it by the complainant for the period mentioned in the complaint and that after the alleged accident the information was given to it upon which the surveyors named in the complaint were deputed to make the spot survey and to assess the final loss. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it pleaded that Jaswant Singh, driver, was not having genuine driving licence and the driving licence possessed by him was found to be fake. Amarendra Dash, Advocate, was appointed as the Investigator, who obtained the report from the Licensing Authority, Cuttack on 10.8.2009. It was found that the alleged licence No.2665/88-89 had been issued by that authority in the name of one Gadadhar Parida son of B. Parida, Sujanpur, Cuttack for the period from 7.9.1988 to 6.9.1993. As the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, so the claim of the complainant was repudiated, vide letter dated 1.9.2009 and he was duly informed by sending letter through registered post. The complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' and complicated questions of law and fact are involved and, as such, the complaint is not maintainable before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, "District Forum") and only the Civil Court is competent to decide the present dispute.
3. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the First Appeal No.1522 of 2010. 4 complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay the insurance amount of Rs.2,10,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim till the payment of that amount and Rs.1,000/- on account of the costs of filing the complaint, vide order dated 28.7.2010. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that from the evidence produced on the record, which includes the report obtained from the Licensing Authority, Cuttack, it is proved that the driving licence, which Jaswant Singh, driver, had been getting renewed from time to time was a fake one. That licence No.2665/88-89 was never issued in the name of that driver and had been issued in the name of one Gadadhar Parida son of B. Parida. The renewal of the fake licence will not make the same valid and effective. From that evidence, it is to be concluded that Jaswant Singh was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and, as such, there was a violation of the fundamental conditions of the insurance policy. As per that condition, only a person holding an effective driving licence could have driven the same and in the case of driving of the vehicle by a person not possessing such a driving licence, the liability under the insurance policy could not have been fastened to the Insurance Company. Therefore, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. First Appeal No.1522 of 2010. 5
6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that on the basis of the reliable evidence it was correctly concluded by the District Forum that Jaswant Singh was holding a valid and effective driving licence. That finding has been recorded not merely on the basis of the evidence but also on the basis of the law laid down in the judgments so mentioned in the order under appeal. It is very much clear from the driving licence proved on the record as Ex.C-3 that it was driving licence No.26165/88 issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack that was got renewed by Jaswant Singh, from time to time. The evidence has been produced by the Insurance Company regarding the other licence bearing No.2665/88-89. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that Jaswant Singh, driver, had got renewed a fake licence. There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned order of the District Forum.
7. The insurance policy was proved on the record as Ex.R-3. Persons entitled to drive the vehicle are mentioned therein. It was a specific condition of the insurance policy that a person must be holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining the same. In order to prove that Jaswant Singh was holding a valid and effective driving licence, the complainant proved on record the licence itself as Ex.C-3. That driving licence No.2858/R purports to have been issued by the Licensing Authority, Patiala, which was valid from 29.9.1995 to 28.9.1998. Thereafter, Jaswant Singh had been getting the same renewed from time to time. Learned counsel for the complainant has First Appeal No.1522 of 2010. 6 tried to place reliance on one endorsement made on this licence, which reads as under:-
"Driving Licence No.26165/88, Cuttak."
According to him, on the basis of that endorsement, the evidence produced by the Insurance Company regarding driving licence No.2665/11.7.1988, Cuttack cannot be looked into.
8. All the documents proved on the record by the Insurance Company, including Ex.R-7 and Ex.R-9, are regarding Licence No.2665/88 having been issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttak in the name of other person. Therefore, the question arise as to which licence was got renewed by Jaswant Singh? Whether it was Licence No.2665/88-89 issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttak or Licence No.26165/88 issued by that Licensing Authority?
9. In order to make the position clear, the Insurance Company summoned the concerned clerk of the Licensing Authority, Patiala, along with complete record pertaining to the driving licence of Jaswant Singh. Sampuran Singh, Clerk of that office appeared and his statement was recorded by the District Forum. He made his statement on the basis of the record maintained in the office of DTO, Patiala. He stated that as per entry No.2858/R/95.A, the driving licence of Jaswant Singh was renewed for the period 29.9.1995 to 28.9.1995 on the basis of the original Licene No.2665 dated 11.7.1988 issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack. He also made his statement regarding the renewal of that licence from time to time. He proved on record the relevant entries of the registers brought by him as Ex.R-9 to Ex.R-13.
First Appeal No.1522 of 2010. 7
10. From the statement of this witness and entry at 2858 of Ex.R9, it is very much clear that Jaswant Singh had got renewed Licence No.2665 dated 1.7.1988 issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack. In view of this evidence, which is of unimpeachable nature, no weight can be given to the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant and the evidence produced by him that Jaswant Singh got renewed licence No.26165. In fact, he tried to play mischief from time to time. He filled up Form No.10 for getting the licence renewed, Ex.R-12. At that time the licence was renewed upto 31.3.2008 with effect 1.4.2005. First very column of that Form is regarding the Driving Licence number and date of initials issue and the next column is the name of the Licensing Authority which issued the licence. He mentioned in those two columns that this was Licence No.2858/R, which was issued by the DTO, Patiala. As per Form No.10, Ex.R-13, he got the licence renewed upto 31.3.2011 with effect from 3.4.2008. In the first two columns of that Form, he mentioned that the original licence No.26165/88 issued by the Licensing Authority, Calcutta. This contradictory stand being taken by him also creates confidence in the stand taken by the Insurance Company that it was a fake driving licence, which was got renewed by Jaswant Singh from time to time. The fact remains that when Jaswant Singh got renewed the driving licence from the Licensing Authority, Patiala, for the first time, he had given the particulars of the original licence as No.2665 of 1.7.1988 issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack. Cogent and convincing evidence was produced by the Insurance Company that the said licence had been issued by First Appeal No.1522 of 2010. 8 the Licensing Authority, Cuttack in the name of one Gadadhar Parida. The report of Licensing Authority, Cuttack was proved before the District Forum and from that document, the said fact stands proved. It was successfully proved on the record by the Insurance Company that Jaswant Singh got renewed licence, which was never issued in his name by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack and that was a fake driving licence. It is now well settled that the renewal of a fake driving licence will not make the same genuine. Thus, it is to be concluded that Jaswant Singh was not holding the effective driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, as per the terms of the insurance policy, no liability could have been fastened to the Insurance Company. The claim made by the complainant was correctly repudiated. A wrong finding to the contrary was recorded by the District Forum, which is hereby set aside.
11. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is hereby accepted, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, no order is made as to costs.
12. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants-Insurance Company by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
13. The arguments in this case were heard on 28.11.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.1522 of 2010. 9
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)
December 02 , 2013 MEMBER
Bansal