State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Ashok Kumar on 26 May, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
1st Additional Bench
FIRST APPEAL NO. 840 OF 2012
Date of Institution: 20.06.2012
Date of Decision: 26.05.2014
National Insurance Co.Ltd., Regional Office, S.C.O. No.332-334,
Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted Attorney.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party
VERSUS
Ashok Kumar S/o Sh.Roshan Lal, C/o M/s Jasdish Medical Hall,
Patran.
.....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order
dated 30.4.2012 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member
Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh.P.S.Bedi, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Satish Choudhary, Advocate
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and directions were issued to the opposite party to disburse the amount of Rs.1,30,070/- to him with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 3.2.2011 till final realisation. First Appeal No. 840 of 2012 Page 2 of 7
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant got his truck No.PB-11-AB-7385 insured with the opposite party for the period 19.9.2009 to 18.9.2010, which met with an accident on 5.6.2010 in District Bhavnagar (Gujarat) while being driven by Krishan Chand S/o Puran Chand. The accident was reported to the police and truck was towed from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad on payment of Rs.8,200/-. He further spent Rs.2,40,000/- for getting the truck repaired. He lodged the claim with the opposite party who informed him that the driving licence, issued by the RTA, Cuttak to said Krishan Chand driver, was fake and sought his comments in this regard. In response to this, he informed the opposite party that Krishan Chand had held driving licence No.41708/TV/Z/09 issued by the District Transport Officer, Zunheboto (Nagaland) on 11.9.2009 that was valid upto 10.8.2012 and he also sent a copy of the same as obtained from Krishan Chand before he was employed as a driver. The opposite party sought the report of the DTO Zunheboto which informed that the licence was genuine and valid. However, the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant on 3.2.2011 on the ground that the driver of the truck was holding two driving licences at the time of accident and thus, he violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act"). He approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite party to disburse the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- spent by him in getting the truck repaired alongwith Rs.2,700/- as surveyor's fee paid by him and Rs.8,200/- spent by him in towing the truck from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad First Appeal No. 840 of 2012 Page 3 of 7 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him was also prayed.
3. The opposite party appeared and filed written reply admitting that the said truck was insured with it for a sum assured of Rs.9,00,000/- for the period 19.9.2009 to 18.9.2010. It was pleaded that on receipt of intimation regarding the loss from the driver of the truck, Sh.Krishan Chand, the Divisional Office at Bhavnagar, deputed Sh.Mahesh B. Vaghela, surveyor for special survey who submitted his report dated 9.6.2010. Thereafter, M/s Eminent Surveyors, Patiala was appointed for final survey, who submitted its report dated 25.7.2010 and assessed the loss as Rs.1,30,070/-. But the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the original driving licence of Krishan Chand, allegedly issued by the Licensing Authority Cuttak, was found to be fake. Subsequently, insured submitted another driving licence allegedly issued by Licensing Authority Zunheboto (Nagaland) but the claim was rejected on the ground that the holding of two driving licenses is a violation of Section 6 of the Act and he was, accordingly, informed vide letter dated 3.2.2011. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and the District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, accepted the complaint in aforesaid terms.
First Appeal No. 840 of 2012 Page 4 of 7
5. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite party has come up in appeal on the ground that the impugned order of the District Forum was based on surmises and conjectures and the same was liable to be set aside. It was categorically submitted that as per provisions of the Act, a person cannot hold two driving licences at one point of time. Reliance was placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case titled as "Jai Parkash Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd." II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC) in which it was held that holding of two driving licences was prohibited under the law and if the violation of the policy condition and provisions of the law was proved, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the loss. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the District Forum has rightly concluded that the order of the District Forum was based on facts and there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
8. Admittedly, on an application moved by the insurance company the copy of the driving licence No.K1710/89 dated 17.10.1989, issued in the name of Sh.Krishan Chand by DTO Cuttack (Nagaland) was sent for verification by the District Forum to the Licensing Authority, Cuttack to verify its authenticity. The verification report is endorsed as Ex.R-18 in which it has been stated that the driving licence First Appeal No. 840 of 2012 Page 5 of 7 No.K1710/89 was not issued to anybody as much as driving licence numbers of Cuttak (Orissa) are not pre-fixed by any alphabet such as "K" and only two driving licences bearing No.4098 and 4099 have been issued by that office on 17.10.1989. Thus the driving licence in the name of Krishan Chand S/o Puran Chand was not a genuine one. It is also the admitted case of the opposite party that the complainant submitted another driving licence No.41708/TV/Z/09 held by the driver, Sh.Krishan Chand, issued by the Ditrict Tansport Officer, Zunheboto (Nagaland) on 11.9.2009 that was valid upto 10.8.2012. The verification report of the Licensing Authority, Zunheboto has been proved on record by the complainant as Ex.CW-1/21 in which it has been certified that this driving licence issued from their office in the name of Krishan Chand was valid upto 10.9.2012 and that office had no objection for the renewal and authorisation of the said driving licence. This report has not been challenged by the opposite party. It is thus established that the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident was holding a one genuine driving licence issued from the state of Nagaland and a fake driving licence purportedly issued by the Government of Orissa.
9. The provisions of Section 6 of the Act are reproduced as under:-
"6. Restrictions on the holding of driving licence-
1. No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner's licence of driving licence issued in First Appeal No. 840 of 2012 Page 6 of 7 accordance with the provisions of Section 18 or a document authorizing, in accordance with the rules made under Section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.
2. No holder of a driving licence or a learner's licence shall permit it to be used by any other person.
3. Nothing in this section shall prevent a licensing authority having the jurisdiction referred to in Sub Section (1) of Section 9 from adding to the classes of vehicle which the driving licence authorises the holder to drive."
10. A perusal of this provision shows that no person can hold more than one driving licence at a given time. But as already stated one of the two driving licence held by the driver was a fake one and the same cannot be termed as a valid driving licence. A fake driving licence, in fact, is no licence in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it cannot be said that he was holding two driving licence at the same time because he was holding only one valid driving licence and as per which he was authorised to drive the insured vehicle. Therefore, repudiation of the claim by the opposite party on this ground is found to be unjustified.
11. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal of the appellant/opposite party and the same is dismissed. The impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
12. The appellant/opposite party deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, alongwith interest, First Appeal No. 840 of 2012 Page 7 of 7 which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
13. The arguments in the case were heard on 19.5.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) PRESIDING MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER May 26, 2014 VINAY