National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar Goel on 25 July, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.3585 OF 2007 (From the order dated 27.07.2007 in Appeal No.357/2007 of the State Commission, Delhi) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Petitioner Versus Rajesh Kumar Goel Respondent BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr.Ram Ashray, Advocate for Mr.S.L. Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.B. Karunakaran, Advocate Pronounced on 25th July, 2011 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed by the National Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Appeal No.357/07.
Rajesh Kumar Goel who was the original complainant before the District Forum is the Respondent herein.
The case according to the Respondent is that as proprietor of M/s Swastik Road Carriers, he is engaged in the business of transportation and earns his livelihood by running trucks.
In this connection he had taken an insurance policy with regard to a Truck bearing registration No.HR 46 B 2009 from the Petitioner/Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.8,07,500/- which was valid from 29.10.2003 to 28.10.2004. Unfortunately, the Truck met with an accident on 09.08.2004 by dashing against a Trailer which suddenly stopped causing extensive damage to the Truck.
The Respondent duly informed the Petitioner about the accident and since the total loss to the vehicle was about Rs.6 lakhs, he also filed a claim. The Petitioner after inspection and survey assessed the loss at Rs.3,60,027.95p and although the assessment was inadequate and did not take into account he entire loss sustained by the Respondent, the Petitioner did not even disburse this amount and after several visits informed the Respondent vide its letter dated 09.06.2005 that the claim of the Respondent had been repudiated because the licence of the driver at the time of the accident was fake. Respondent challenged this contention and stated that he had verified from the Licencing Authority, Hissar that the driving licence of the concerned driver had been renewed by that Authority. Respondent, therefore, issued a legal notice to the Petitioner and thereafter filed a complain before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and prayed that the Petitioner be directed to pay him a sum of Rs.3,60,027.95p being the claim assessed by the Surveyor, Rs.1 lakh as compensation for harassment along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 09.08.2004 and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
Petitioner on the other hand admitted that the vehicle which met with an accident was insured by the Petitioner and also confirmed that as per the report of the Surveyor, damage to the vehicle was assessed at Rs.3,60,027.95p. However, Petitioner contended that it was well within its rights to repudiate the claim because during the course of investigation it came to light that as per the records of the Licencing Authority, Una, no such driving licence was issued to the concerned driver and, therefore, the original licence of the Driver purported to be issued at Una and subsequently renewed from the Licensing Authority, Hisar was in fact fake. In view of this and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, Petitioner was justified in repudiating the claim.
The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by observing as follows:
It is not in dispute that the driving licence held by Sh.Satpal driver on the date of accident was found to have been renewed from Hissar which renewal of licence was found genuine. However, the OPs, during investigation through their investigator Sh.Rajan Kumar Soni came to know that as per the records of Licencing Authority at Una no such driving licence was issued from there which fake licence alleged to have been issued from Una was got renewed by driver Sh.Satpal from Hissar.
It is on the basis of the report of Sh.Rajan Kumar Soni surveyor and loss assessor that OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the plea that any invalid licence cannot get its validity outfit outstripped off merely on account of some other authority renewing the same with or without knowing about its invalidity. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in the submission of Sh.S.R.Bhatti arguing the case on behalf of OPs that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on account of licence having not been issued in the first instance from Una though the same was got renewed by the driver Sh.Satpal from Hissar Licencing Authority.
An owner of a vehicle is supposed to take necessary precautions to ensure that the driver being appointed by him holds a valid driving licence. In the present case, the licence according to the version of the complainant examined by him had been renewed from Hissar from where he verified about the genuineness of the licence and the genuineness of licence was thus confirmed from Hissar Licencing Authority. It is too much to expect from an insured to go on investigating whether the licence from the date of inception was genuine or was actually renewed from time to time by the concerned authorities from different parts of the country. In the present case, the fact that complainant verified the genuineness of the licence from Hissar from where it was actually renewed is sufficient to prove his bonafide.
The District Forum, therefore, directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.3,60,027.95p towards damages suffered, Rs.10,000/- for inconvenience and harassment caused and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed and appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. The relevant part of the order of the State Commissions reads as follows:
Even otherwise no employer of a driver is expected to first verify from the licence issuing authority as to the genuineness of the driving licence.
He employs a person on the face value of the licence and also by testing or by giving his vehicle and particularly if for long duration no accident takes place, the presumption as to the skill and capability of driver is always available.
Driving licence is a certificate to the skill and ability of a person to drive a particular vehicle. The process and procedure of renewing the licence issued by any other authority than the renewing authority is the same as is involved in issuing a new licence because every driver is subjected to test as to his ability even at the time of renewal of the existing licence. Therefore, for the purpose of indemnification of the loss or damage to the vehicle through accident can be availed on the basis of a renewed licence.
Unless the renewed licence is also proved to be a fake licence it is as good as a new licence.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
Hence the present revision petition.
Learned counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Petitioner stated that the learned fora below erred in not appreciating the fact that by getting the insured vehicle driven by a driver with a fake licence, the Respondent had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy which is a contractual agreement between the two parties. Counsel for Petitioner contended that just because the renewal of the licence was found to be genuine, as contended by the Respondent and accepted by the Fora below, it would not mean that the originally fake driving licence on its renewal would become a valid and effective driving licence. This has been confirmed by various judgments of the Apex Court and of the National Commission including in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxminarayan Dhut (Civil Appeal No.1140 of 2007 decided on 02.03.2007), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh 2007(8) SCC 698 and The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Purna Chandra Jena (R.P.No.1427 of 2007 decided on 07.07.2011) wherein it was held that if the original licence is fake, its renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. Counsel for Petitioner stated that the he had filed in evidence a report from the Registration & Licensing Authority, Una confirming on 01.07.2007 that it had not issued any driving licence as purported by the driver to him. The letter from the Registering & Licencing Authority, Una reads as follows:
Received with the remarks that Driving Licence No.7391/85 has not been issued by this office. It is further clarified that in the year 1985-1986, only 451 Driving Licences were issued (Sr.No.1 to 451) by this office. Hence, it appears to be a fake licence.
Taking into account this conclusive proof that the original licence was fake and in view of the judgements of the Apex Court cited, Counsel for Petitioner prayed that the revision petition be accepted.
Counsel for Respondent contended that the Fora below being courts of fact had after considering the evidence produced before them rightly concluded that the Petitioner was wrong in repudiating the insurance claim.
We have heard counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the evidence on record.
The accident and the damages caused to the Truck are not in dispute in the present case. The claim was repudiated on the grounds that in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the driver of the insured Truck which met with an accident did not have a genuine driving licence.
Counsel for Petitioner has placed on record the verification report of the Surveyor which contains an endorsement to this effect by the Registering & Licensing Authority, Una.
We find force in the contentions of the Petitioner that it is now settled law that once a original licence is fake even its genuine renewal cannot take away its effect. We also note that the Petitioner on whom the onus to prove that the licence was fake has produced a letter from the Registering & Licencing Authority, Una which specifically states that the driving licence in question of the driver was not issued by that Authority and is thus fake.
Keeping in view this important piece of evidence and respectfully following the judgments of the Apex Court cited earlier, we have no option but to set aside the orders of the Fora below.
The revision petition is, therefore, accepted with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
..
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER /sks/