National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sangram Singh Yadav on 21 March, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2008 (From the order dated 27.11.2007 in Appeal No. 2794/2001 of the U.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow) 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office Ram Katara Chauraha, Varanisi, Through Divisional Manager 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Shubra Hotel Mahuvabagh, Gazipur, Through Branch Manager Petitioners/Opposite Parties (OP) Versus Sangram Singh Yadav S/o Hardev Singh R/o Jalapur, Post Jalapur District Balia, Uttar Pradesh Respondent/Complainant BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. De, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi, Advocate Mr. Zahid Ali, Advocate Mrs. Deepa Aggarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sharad Pandey, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Pandey, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 21st March, 2013 O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/OP against the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 2794 of 2001 United India Insurance Co. Vs. Sangram Singh Yadav by which, while dismissing appeal, order passed by learned District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is a registered owner of Ambassador Car No. U.P. 060/8384. His vehicle was insured by OP for a period of one year commencing from 8.9.1997 to 7.8.1998.
Complainant appointed Sh. Khadakbahadur Yadav as driver in his car, who was possessing a valid driving licence. On 9.8.1998, car met with an accident and driver Sh. Khadakbahadur Yadav died in the accident and car was damaged. Report was lodged with the police station and intimation was given to the OP. As per instructions of OP, complainant obtained estimate of Rs.2,76,200/- as repair charges of the car and submitted documents to the OP. It was further alleged that driving licence of the driver was damaged in the accident; therefore, it was not possible to supply its true copy. Claim was repudiated by OP. Alleging deficiency, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. OP resisted claim and denied valid licence of the driver and further submitted that on verification it was revealed that drivers licence was fake one and complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and directed OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-
as per surveyors report along with Rs.2,000/- as mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.
Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as the driver was not holding valid licence at the time of accident, complainant was not entitled to any claim due to violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, as the driver was holding valid driving licence and petitioner failed to prove licence of the driver to be fake one; hence, the revision petition be dismissed.
5. Complainant has mentioned in paragraph 3 of the complaint that driver of the vehicle deceased Khadakbahadur Yadav was possessing a valid driving licence and only after looking at his driving licence, he appointed him. OP in its written statement before District Forum denied this fact and in such circumstances, burden of proving the fact that the driver of the vehicle was possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident was on the complainant. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his evidence that the driver was possessing a valid driving licence. It appears that at the time of submitting claim form to the OP, complainant submitted photocopy of driving licence of deceased Khadakbahadur Yadav. As per surveyors report and Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle Department, Licence No. 8768 was issued on 14.1.1955 to Khelari Ahir, which expired on 3.4.1989 and in such circumstances; Licence No.8768/Hawrah issued on 7.12.1980 in the name of Khadakbahadur Yadav cannot be a valid driving licence, but a fake driving licence. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that photocopy of driving licence of Khadakbahadur Yadav was not supplied by the complainant. This argument is devoid of force because without supplying photocopy of the driving licence, the OP could not have got copy of the driving licence of Khadakbahadur Yadav. Complainant has not disputed this photocopy of driving licence. Only on receiving photostat copy of the driving licence of Khadakbahadur Yadav from the complainant, it was submitted for verification to the concerned Licensing Authority and on verification, the licence of Khadakbahadur Yadav was found fake.
6. As the vehicle was driven by Khadakbahadur Yadav not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident, OP/petitioner has not committed any error in repudiating claim and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that burden of proof that the driver had no driving licence lies on the Insurance Company and as no evidence was produced about fakeness of the licence, order passed by learned State Commission does not call for any interference.
She placed reliance on 1991 SCC (Cri) 654 Suresh Mohan Chopra Vs. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal & Ors. This citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, driver of the vehicle submitted that he had licence only for one year and after expiry, he destroyed the licence; so could not produce and Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence against this explanation. In such circumstances, statement of driver about his having the licence at the time of accident was held justified. On the contrary, in the present case, driver died in the accident and complainant simply stated in the complaint that he has seen drivers licence. No doubt, he must have seen drivers licence as he has supplied photostat copy of the licence to the OP, but the OP denied in its written statement about validity of licence and after verification by RTO, Hawrah, submitted licence was found to be fake one which was naturally issued in the year 1955 in the name of Khelari Ahir. She also placed reliance on JT 2011 (3) SC 586 - Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. in which on the strength of evidence of authorized officer of RTO, it was held that driver was possessing valid driving licence. This citation does not help the respondent because respondent has not adduced any evidence regarding validity of licence of the driver, whereas on the contrary, appellant has submitted verification report of Licensing Authority, Hawrah. She also placed reliance on (2009) 13 SCC 188 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. J.
Maheshwaramma in which licence was not found fabricated, as the authenticity of the certificate issued by Transport Authority was not rebutted. This citation does not help the respondent, as in this case, genuineness of licence held by the driver has been rebutted by the appellant. She also placed reliance on (2007) 3 SCC 700 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut and learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the same judgement, which was considered in (2007) 8 SCC 698 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh in which it was held that where originally the licence was fake one, the renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality and further held that claim is not maintainable in case of damage to the own vehicle if it was driven by a person having originally fake licence. Thus, it becomes clear that if the driver was holding fake licence at the time of accident, insured of the vehicle is not entitled to get reimbursement of damages caused to the insured vehicle in an accident.
8. Petitioner has proved that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence and in such circumstances, complainant/respondent was not entitled to any reimbursement of damage caused to the vehicle and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and further learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.
9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 27.11.2007 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No.2794 of 2001 is set aside and complaint is dismissed.
..Sd/-
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
( DR. B.C. GUPTA ) MEMBER k