State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab Khapatkar Sang (Regd.) Ludhiana vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 29 June, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SCO NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.944 of 2010
Date of Institution : 27.5.2010
Date of Decision : 29.6.2010
Punjab Khapatkar Sang (Regd.) Ludhiana on behalf of Sh.Avtar Singh, Prop.
Daware Sales Corpn., Gobindpura Market, Gill Road, Ludhiana.
.........Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. White House, Comml. Complex, Near
Bus Stand, Ludhiana through its Manager/Incharge.
.........Respondent
Appeal against the order dated 27.4.2010
of District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana.
BEFORE
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
PRESENT For the appellant : Sh.D.D.Bawa, Rep.
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Avtar Singh, Proprietor of Dawar Sales Corporation, Ludhiana was the owner of Honda City Car bearing Registration No.PB-10-BJ-0898. It was insured with the respondents from 18.5.2007 to 17.5.2008. It met with an accident on 22.12.2007. The Insurance Claim was lodged by Avtar Singh and on the instructions of the respondents, he sent the car to the workshop of Lally Motors Ltd., Dhandari Kala, G.T.Road, Ludhiana for repairs. The said workshop raised the bill to the tune of Rs.1,13,556/- vide Invoice dated 12.1.2008. However, the insurance claim lodged by the appellant was repudiated by the respondents vide letter dated 3.4.2008. Hence said Avtar Singh filed a complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal 2 Appeal 944/2010 Forum, Ludhiana through Punjab Khapatkar Sang (Regd) Ludhiana for insurance claim, compensation and costs.
2. The respondents filed the written statement. It was pleaded that Avtar Singh, owner was driving the said car himself at the time of accident while he was not holding a valid driving licence at that time. It was also pleaded that Punjab Khapatkar Sang (Regd.) Ludhiana had no authority to file the complaint on behalf of Avtar Singh as Avtar Singh was not a Member of Punjab Khapatkar Sang (Regd.) Ludhiana and the dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
3. The parties produced affidavits/documents in support of their respective versions.
4. The learned Additional Bench, District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 27.4.2010 with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
5. Hence the appeal.
6. The submission of Sh.D.D.Bawa, President of Punjab Khapatkar Sang (Regd.) was that Avtar Singh had the right to file the complaint/appeal through Punjab Khapatkar Sang (Regd.) Ludhiana and he was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It was submitted that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgement dated 27.4.2010 be set aside.
7. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
8. The appellant had produced the Insurance Policy, Ex.C-1 and the Driving Licence of Avtar Singh dated 8.6.2000. It was issued by the Licencing Authority, Ludhiana in his favour and it has proved as Ex.C-2/C-
11. The District Transport Officer, Ludhiana vide his letter dated 16.11.2009, Ex.C-12 has also reported that the Licence, Ex.C-2/Ex.C-11 dated 8.6.2000 stands in the name of Neeraj Bindra son of Jang Bahadur. It was issued to 3 Appeal 944/2010 him on 3.6.2000 which was valid upto 2.7.2017. Copy of the entry in the driving licence register of DTO Ludhiana was also proved as Ex.C-13 according to which the Driving Licence, Ex.C-2/C-11 was in favour of Neeraj Bindra.
9. From the documents of the appellant himself, it is clearly proved that the driving licence, Ex.C-2/C-11 was not in favour of Avtar Singh, complainant-appellant rather it was in favour of Neeraj Bindra.
10. The submission of Sh.D.D.Bawa was that there was no such person of the name of Neeraj Bindra living on the address given in the record of D.T.O. It was revealed by his personal visit to the place shown in the record of D.T.O., Ludhiana as the address of Neeraj Bindra. Moreover the old member of this Driving Licence, Ex.C-2/C-11 was 47098 dated 8.6.2000 which was issued in favour of Avtar Singh. He had also reported that the Driving Licence No.16713/93 was issued in favour of Avtar Singh which was valid for the period from 30.3.1993 to 30.3.2000. Hence it was prayed that the entry in favour of Neeraj Bindra was wrongly made in the office of D.T.O., Ludhiana by the official concerned while infact the Driving Licence, Ex.C-2/C-11 was valid in favour of Avtar Singh.
11. This submission has also been considered.
12. The D.T.O., Ludhiana has not only proved on the basis of his official record that the driving licence, Ex.C-2/C-11 was in favour of Neeraj Bindra, rather he also produced a copy of entry from the concerned Register which also proves that this entry was in favour of Neeraj Bindra and not in favour of Avtar Singh. It is, therefore, clearly proved that Avtar Singh was not holding a valid driving licence when he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the driving licence proved by him was fake.
13. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a fake driving licence cannot become a valid driving licence. Reference may 4 Appeal 944/2010 be made to the judgement reported as 'National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Saheb Singh, 2009 CTJ 947 (Supreme Court) (CP'), wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the insurer would not be liable to pay the insurance claim.
14. There is no merit in the present appeal. However, the cost imposed on Sh.D.D.Bawa to the tune of Rs.1,000/- is set aside.
15. Accordingly this appeal is partly accepted to the extent that costs have been waived.
( JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL ) PRESIDENT ( MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA ) MEMBER June 29, 2010 vr/-
5Appeal 944/2010