National Consumer Disputes Redressal
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Inderjit Singh on 5 January, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4 of 2007 (From the Order dated 6.11.2006 in First Appeal No. 2063/2006 the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, SCO No.1234-124 Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. Through Its Deputy Manager At Regional Office-1 Kanchanjangha Building, 18-B-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001. Petitioner VERSUS Inderjit Singh Son of Sh. Bachan Singh Resident of H.No.241/1, Charkhi Mohalla, Ambala City Haryana. Respondent BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Udit Kumar Kr. Chaturvedi For Mr. A.K. De, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Sharma PRONOUNCED ON: 05.01.2011 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Petitioner herein which was the Opposite Party before the District Forum has filed the present Revision Petition against the judgement dated 6.11.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, State Commission) whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner.
Briefly stated that facts are that the Respondent-Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, the District Forum), Ambala seeking a direction to the Petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.85,191/- against damage to this truck along with interest and compensation. In the complaint it was stated that that the complainant was the owner of the truck bearing registration No.HR37-5575 which was insured with the Petitioner for the period 18.3.2001 to 17.3.2002. That the insured truck met with an accident on 7.6.2001 which was intimated by Complainant to Petitioner and in spite of fulfilling all the requirements his claim was not settled.
On being served, Petitioner entered appearance and filed its written statement denying the contents of the complaint. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs,85,191/- towards loss as by the surveyor along with interest @ 10% from the date of submission of the claim till its realization, Rs.500/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission. By the impugned order, State Commission relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh - AIR 2004 SC 1531= (2004) 3 SCC 297, has dismissed the Appeal.
Counsel for the Parties have been heard.
It is not disputed before us that the Respondent got his truck insured with the Petitioner for the period 18.3.2001 to 17.3.2002 It is also not disputed that the said truck met with an accident and information of the accident was reported to the Police Station Ramgarh, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) on the same day.
Petitioner Insurance Company was informed about the accident which appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.85,191. The only point to be decided is whether the Respondent-Complainant had a valid driving license as on the date of accident.
The case of the Petitioner was that the Respondent was holding fake license at the time of accident. Respondent had produced a renewed driving license Annexure-R12 issued by Licensing Authority, Patiala. Through Annexure R-8, Licensing Authority Patiala had informed that it had renwed the driving license on the basis of old driving license No.7168 dated 15.8.1987 issued by the Licensing Authority Deharadun. This fact was also mentioned in the renewed driving license Annexure R12. On a query raised to the Licensing Authority, Deharadun, the Licensing Authority, Deharadun reported that no driving license with No.7168 dated 15.8.1987 had been issued to any person.
Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla (2001) 4 SCC 342 held that a fake license cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. That renewal cannot transform a fake license as genuine. Para 12 of the said judgement reads as under:
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 Licensing 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.
The original license purported to have been issued by the Dehradun Licensing Authority was a fake license. The renewal by the Licensing Authority Patiala could not transform the fake license into a genuine license. The vice of fake license cannot be erased by renewal.
State Commission relying upon the Swaran Singhs Case (supra), held that because the license had been renewed the insurer could not avoid the liability to the insured. The State Commission has clearly erred because the Judgement in the Swaran Singhs (supra) case was rendered in the background of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where third Party rights were involved. In the said case it was held that any condition in the policy whereby the right of the third party is taken away would be void. That the same would not be applicable to own damage case. In a similar case after taking into consideration the entire case law the Supreme Court has held that:
The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the decision in Swaran Singh's case has no application to own damage cases. The effect of fake license has to be considered in the light of what has been stated by this Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla. Once the license is a fake one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake license.
Since, in the preent case the original license issued to the Respondent was found to be fake, it would be deemed as if the Respondent did not possess a valid driving license. Since the vehicle was driven by Respondent in violation of the terms of the policy as well as in violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Petitioner Insurance Company was entitled to repudiate the claim. The policy was vitiated and the Insurance Company had the right to repudiate the contract.
For the reasons stated above, this Revision Petition is allowed, orders passed by the For a below are set aside, complaint is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER