State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Purshottam Das Goyal on 28 August, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2018/342
Instituted on : 22.06.2018
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Near Kumkum Hotel, Bramh Road,
Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant (O.P.)
Vs.
Purshottam Das Goyal, S/o Nand Kishore Goyal,
Aged 67 years, Profession - Business,
Resident of Main road,
Vishrampur, District Surajpur (C.G.) .... Respondent (Complainant)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri M.L. Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant (O.P.).
Shri B.N. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent (complainant).
ORDER
DATED : 28/AUGUST/2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.02.2018, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambikapur. Surguja (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.49/2017. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
(1) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.93,915/- (Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifteen) towards compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 01.04.2017 till date of payment, to the complainant, within period of one month.
// 2 // (2) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) towards compensation for mental agony, to the complainant. (3) The O.P. will pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards cost of litigation, to the complainant.
2 Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that, the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.15-A.C.- 4102, having Engine No.B519803251C63429536 and Chassis No., MA9447224F43C057, which is one and only source of livelihood of the complainant. The above vehicle was insured by the O.P. for the period from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2017. The vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 12.07.2016 near Udaypur Salhi Chowk. The complainant orally gave intimation regarding the accident to the concerned Police Station and also gave intimation to the O.P. regarding the accident. The complainant requested the O.P. for payment of the compensation. The O.P. registered Claim No.270600316C050234001/1 in respect of damage to the insured vehicle. The complainant submitted estimate of the expenses and supplementary estimate before the O.P. After registering the claim of the complainant by the O.P., the O.P. (Insurance Company) got conducted the spot survey of the accidented vehicle from Surveyor Arunendra Pratap Singh, who after conducting the spot survey of the accidented vehicle instructed the complainant for getting the vehicle repaired. The complainant also submitted estimate of repairing expenses of the vehicle before the Surveyor and the Surveyor gave his consent on the same. After getting instructions from the Surveyor, the complainant got repaired the vehicle from Lucky Engineering Work, where the O.P. got // 3 // conducted the final survey from Surveyor Arunendra Pratap Singh, but in the meantime Surveyor Aruendra Pratap Singh, had died., therefore, again survey of the vehicle was got done from Surveyor P.K. Agrawal, but when the complainant demanded the copy of the above Survey Report, then he told the complainant to receive the copy of the Survey Report from the office of the O.P. The complainant several times personally contacted to the office of the O.P. and request to provide copy of final survey report, but the O.P. did not provide copy of the final survey report. The complainant incurred expenditure of total amount of Rs.2,43,750/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) in repairing of the accidented vehicle and the above amount was paid by the complainant to Lucky Engineering Works The complainant provided the bills regarding repairing of the vehicle to the O.P. and after receiving the bills, the O.P. assured the complainant that it will pay the said amount to the complainant, but all of sudden the O.P. vide letter dated 11.01.2017 the O.P. informed to the complainant that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the claim of complainant was repudiated. The O.P. assured the complainant that it will pay the amount to the complainant and on the other hand without providing opportunity of hearing to the complainant, his claim was repudiated, which comes in the category of deficiency in service. In the letter of repudiation daed 11.01.2017, it is mentioned that at the time of accident, the driver was no having valid driving licence, but in this regard no special particular has been given. On the date of accident, the vehicle of the complainant was standing and at that time the driver of unknown vehicle dashed the vehicle of the complainant. The repudiation of claim of the // 4 // complainant on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence, is not proper and comes in the category of deficiency in service. Due to act of the O.P., the complainant suffered financial loss, mental and physical agony. Hence, the complainant filed the instant consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in relief clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. filed its written statements and denied the allegations made by the complainant against it. The O.P. averred that the vehicle truck bearing registration No.C.G.15-AC-4102 was insured with the O.P. under the terms and conditions for the period from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2017. On being intimation received regarding the incident, the O.P. got conducted spot survey from Surveyor Anjani Kumar Tiwari and final survey and re-inspection was conducted by P.K. Agrawal, who assessed the loss to the insured vehicle to the tune of Rs.93,915/-. The complainant will be entitled for the above amount when he fully complies with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get the amount assessed by the Surveyor. In the Claim Form, the complainant mentioned the at the time of accident the vehicle in question was being driven by Siyasram and also provided the licence of the above driver. The licence No. of the above driver is BR19/19860057417. The verification of the above driving licence was got conducted from Investigator Tilak Jha. The District Transport Officer, Saharsa Bihar, issued Certificate on 06.12.2016 that the driving licence of the above driver is not recorded in the record of their office. The above driving licence has // 5 // not been issued from Transport Office, Saharsa, therefore, the driving licence of the driver is fake and fabricated. At the time of incident, the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and due to above legal reason, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the O.P. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the O.P. Surveyor Arunendra Pratap Singh had died, who had not conducted any survey and he had not given his consent on the estimate. The complainant did not demand survey report. At the time of survey, the owner of the vehicle was present. In view of Surveyor's Report, the amount sought by the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,43,750/- is irrelevant and baseless. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the legal ground. The complainant was given opportunity of hearing. The O.P. did not commit deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the complainant on legal ground. In the claim repudiation letter, there is mention of special particulars. The averment that the vehicle was standing is false and was made only for making claim. The complainant himself mentioned in the claim form that the driver of the vehicle, who was running before the vehicle in question has suddenly applied the brake due to which the vehicle in question dashed with that vehicle. In Survey Report, the same thing is mentioned. The vehicle in question was not in standing condition but it was in running condition. The complainant knows that the driving licence of the driver is not valid. The O.P. repudiated the claim of the complainant on valid ground, therefore, it has not committed any deficiency in service. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving // 6 // licence, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the O.P. The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure A-1 is claim repudiation letter dated 11.01.2017, Annexure A-2 is Registration Certificate, Annexure A-3 is permit for goods vehicle, Annexure A-4 is Certificate of Fitness, Annexure A-5 is Insurance Policy, Annexure A-6 is driving licence of Siyas Ram, Annexure A-7 is Estimate given by Lucky Engineering Works, Annexure A-8 is Bill issued by Lucky Engineering Works, Annexure A-9 is Cash Memo dated 23.08.2016 issued by Jai Balaji Motors and Lubricants, Annexure A-10 is notice dated 08.03.2017 sent by Shri Arvind Mehta, Advocate on behalf of the complainant to the O.P., Annexure A-11 is Event details for :
RC1872165271N, Annexure A-12 is extract of driving licence of Siyas Ram, Annexure A-13 is receipt issued by Transport Department, Uttar Pradesh, Annexure A-14 is copy of driving licence of Siyas Ram.
5. The O.P. has also filed documents. Annexure D-1(A) is letter dated 11.01.2017 sent by the O.P. to the complainant, Annexure D-1(B) is letter dated 17.03.2017 sent by the O.P. to Shri Arvind Mehta, Advocate, Annexure D-2 is insurance policy, Annexure D-3(A) is report dated 07.12.2016 of Shri Tilak Jha, Investigator, Annexure D-3(B) is letter dated 06.12.2016 sent by D.T.O., Saharsa to Tilak Jha, Investigator, Annexure D-3(C) is receipt, Annexure D-3(D) is driving licence of Siyas Ram, Annexure D-4 is Motor Spot Survey Report dated 13.07.2016 of Shri Anjani Kumar Tiwari, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Annexure D-5 is Re-Inspection Report dated 30.08.2016 of Shri P.K. Agrawal, Annexure D-6 is Motor (Final) Survey Report dated 30.08.2016 of Shri P.K. // 7 // Agrawal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Annexure D-7 is Motor Claim Form, Annexure D-8 is intimation regarding the accident given by the complainant to the O.P., Annexure D-9 is Certificate of Registration of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.15-A-4102, Annexure D-10 is quotation, Annexure D-12 is Extract of Driving LIcence of Siyas Ram, Annexure A-13 is original receipt issued by Transport Department, Uttar Pradesh.
6. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the O.P. to pay the amounts to the complainant as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
7. Shri M.L. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P.) has argued that the vehicle bearing registration no.C.G.15-AC-4102, was insured with the O.P. under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for the period from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2017. On being intimation received from the complainant regarding the incident, the O.P. got conducted spot survey from Surveyor Anjani Kumar Tiwari and final survey was conducted by P.K. Agrawal, Surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.93,915/-. At the time of accident, the driver Siyas Ram was not having valid and effective driving licence. The driving licence no. of driver Siyas Ram is mentioned as BR19/19860057417. The verification of the above driving licence was got conducted from Investigator Tilak Jha. The District Transport Officer, Saharsa (Bihar) issued Certificate on 06.12.2016 that the driving licence of above driver is not recorded in the record of their office. The above driving licence has not been issued from Transport Office, Saharsa, therefore, the driving licence of the // 8 // driver is fake and fabricated and renewal of the fake driving licence cannot convert the fake driving licence into a valid driving licence. At the time of incident, the driver of the respondent (complainant) was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get claim amount under the insurance policy. The learned District Forum, has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.93,915/- to the complainant, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is liable to be set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) may be allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, may be set aside.
8. Shri B.N. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (complainant) has argued that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.15-AC-4102 which was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2017. At the time of accident, the said vehicle was insured with the O.P. On 17.07.2016, the vehicle in question met with accident. The intimate regarding the accident was given to the concerned Police Station as well as to the O.P. Initially, Arunendra Pratap Singh was appointed as Spot Surveyor, who instructed the complainant for getting the vehicle repaired. Therefore, the vehicle in question was taken by the complainant to Lucky Engineering Works for repairing. The complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.2,43,750/-, but the Surveyor has wrongly assessed loss to the tune of Rs.93,915/-. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.93,915/-, as assessed by the Surveyor. Though, the compensation awarded by the District Forum, is on lower side, but the complainant has not filed any appeal against the impugned // 9 // order, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation, as awarded by the District Forum. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum, as well as impugned order.
10. It is admitted fact that the respondent (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.15-AC-4102, which was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 28.03.2016 to 27.03.2018. It is also admitted fact that the above vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy.
11. It is also admitted fact that initially Arunendra Pratap Singh, was appointed by the appellant (O.P.) as Surveyor, who had died, then the appellant (O.P.) appointed P.K. Agrawal, as Final Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the vehicle in question to the tune of Rs.93,915/-.
12. Now we shall examine whether the driver of the respondent (complainant) was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident ?
13. The ground taken by appellant (O.P.) for repudiation of the claim of the respondent (complainant) is that at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle in question, was not having valid and effective driving licence. On the above ground the claim of the complainant was repudiated.
// 10 //
14. The appellant (O.P.) has specifically pleaded that the driving licence No.BR19/19860057417 which has been filed by the respondent (complainant0 and the driving licence was in the name of Siyas Ram, and the date of issue was 12.02.1986 and it was valid till 16.06.2018. The above driving licence was issued for PSVBUS and TRANSPORT Vehicle. The complainant and O.P. both have filed copy of Extract of Driving Licence of Siyas Ram bearing No.BR19/1986/0057417, which was issued by Transport Department, Fatehpur, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant (O.P.) has filed photocopy of letter No.705 / Transport, Saharsa dated 06.12.2016, which was sent by District Transport Authority, Saharsa, to Shri Tilak Jha, Investigator, in which it is mentioned that the driving licence No.BR19/1986/0057417 was not recorded in the record of District Transport Authority, Saharsa.
15. According to the document Extract of Driving Licence of Siyas Ram (Annexure A-12), the previous No. of the driving licence BR19//1986/0057417 was 57417/BR/86. According to the District Transport Authority, Saharsa, the driving licence was not issued by him. It was renewed by Transport Authority, Fatehpur. It shows that initially the driving licence was not issued by the District Transport Authority, Saharsa. It also shows that the previous driving licence was fake and the fake driving licence was renewed by the District Transport Authority, Fatehpur.
16. In Parasnath Jha Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, I (2018) CPJ 429 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
// 11 // "5. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, IV (2007) SLT 102 = III (2007) CPJ 13 (NC) = II (2007) ACC 28 (SC) = (2007) 3 SCC 700, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted as under :-
"24. In the background of the statutory provisions, one thing is crystal clear i.e. the statute is beneficial one qua the third party. But that benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. The logic of fake licence has to be considered differently in respect of the third party and in respect of own damage claims.
36. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to own damage cases. The effect of fake licence has to be considered in the light of what has been stated by this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla. Once the licence is a fake one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence. It was observed in Kamla case as follows :-
(SCC p. 347, para 12).
12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to 'renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry'. No licencing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine".
37. As noted above, the conceptual difference between third-party right and own damage cases has to be kept in view. Initially, the burden is on the insurer to prove that the licence was a fake one. Once it is established the natural consequences have to flow.
38. In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge :
1. The decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to cases other than third-party risks.
2. Where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal 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.
// 12 //
4. The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act.
The High Courts/Commission shall now consider the matter afresh in the light of position in law as delineated above."
In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Om Prakash Jain, Civil Appeal No.6248 of 2009 decided on 14.09.2009, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision in Laxmi Narayan Dhut (supra) and Swaran Singh (supra) specifically held as under :-
"In National Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmi Narain Dhutt, 2007 (3) S.C.C.700, it has been clearly laid down that the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Anr., 2004 (3) S.C.C. 297, has no application to the cases other than third party risks and where originally licence was a fake, renewal thereof cannot validate the same. In the present case, the complaint was filed for damage of the vehicle of the insured and not the third party risk. The District Forum and State Commission have concurrently held that the original licence of the driver was fake. This being the position, the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint and the State Commission committed an error by awarding compensation to the respondent".
In the aforesaid case, the complaint was filed by the insured himself seeking compensation for the damage caused to his vehicle, which had met with an accident. It was found that the driving licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence. The National Commission having decided in favour of the complainant, the matter was taken by the Insurance Company to the Apex Court.
In United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 698, the respondent owned a vehicle which he had got insured from the appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd. The said vehicle met an accident with a truck. It was being driven by a person, who did not possess a valid licence. The owner of the vehicle filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking compensation for the damages caused to his vehicle. This Commission have ruled in his favour. The matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of an appeal. Allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the Apex Court inter-alia held that the Fora below had committed an error in holding the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle with regard to the losses sustained by him. During the course of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter-alia observed as under :-
// 13 // "10. It is, thus, axiomatic that whereas an Insurance Company may be held to indemnify the owner for the purpose of meeting the object an purport of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same may not be necessary in a case where an Insurance Company may refuse to compensate the owner of the vehicle towards his own loss. A distinction must be borne in mind as regards the statutory liability of the insurer vis-à-vis the purport and object sought to be achieved by a beneficient legislation before a Forum constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act and enforcement of a contract quacontract before a Consumer Forum."
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal, (2007) 5 SCC 428, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision in Swaran Singh , 2004 (3) SCC 297 held as under :-
"It is difficult to apply the ratio of this decision to a case not involving a third party. The who protection provided by Chapter XI of the Act is against third-party risk. Therefore, in case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the Insurance Company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to Swaran Singh ratio. This appears to be the position. This position was expounded recently by this Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Laxminarayan Dhut. This Court after referring to Swaran Singh and discussing the law summed up the position thus :
(Laxmi Narain Dhut case, SCC p. 719 para 38).
The legal proposition emerges from the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that though the Insurance Company is liable to a third party even if the vehicle, at the time it meets with an accident is being driven by a person who does not possess a valid driving licence, the position would be different in a case where compensation is sought by the insured himself, for the damage caused to his vehicle. Wherever, the insured himself is the claimant, the Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse him for the damage caused to the vehicle, if it is found that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid licence at the time the vehicle met with an accident."
17. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, IV (2007) CPJ 1 (SC) = 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 // 14 // 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]."
18. In Dilawar Khan Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., I (2018) CPJ 381 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Driving Licence - Invalid- Violation of policy condition- Claim repudiated."
19. In Meera Dhuria Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. I (2018) CPJ 161 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"Onus to prove that licence was not valid, has been duly discharged by OP Insurance Company by producing report from DTO-cum-Licensing Authority- Once initial onus has been discharged by Insurance company, it was duty of petitioner/complainant to prove, whether such report was false or that driver of vehicle had valid and effective driving licence- Violation of policy condition established- Repudiation justified."
20. 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 // 15 // 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 genuine and insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim- Held: yes, renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence; insurance company has no liability. [2001 ACJ 843 (SC) and 2007 ACJ 721 (SC) followed]."
21. 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.
// 16 //
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."
22. In M/s Royal Goods Transport Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2016 (3) CPR 628 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed, thus :-
"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."
23. 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- Whereever insured himself is claimant, Insurance Company not liable to reimburse him for damage // 17 // caused to vehicle, if it is found that driver of vehicle did not possess valid licence at time of accident- Repudiation justified."
24. From bare perusal of the above judgments, it appears that in the instant case, the driving licence of the driver Siyas Ram, was initially fake, therefore, its subsequent valid renewals, cannot validate a fake licence. If a fake licence is renewed, it will remain fake. In the instant case, the driving licence of the driver Siyas Ram, was fake, therefore, the respondent (complainant) has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and he is not entitled to get any compensation', even on non-standard basis from the appellant (O.P.).
25. Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.02.2018, passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
26. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.02.2018, passed by the District Forum, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant), shall stand dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) (Smt. Ruchi Goel)
President Member Member Member
28/08/2018 28 /08/2018 28 /08/2018 28 /08/2018