State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Brajesh Singh vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 26 March, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.519/2010
Instituted on : 20/08/2010
Brajesh Singh, S/o Shri U.K. Singh,
R/o : Vivekanand Nagar Nigam Colony,
Maharana Pratap Chowk,
Bilaspur (C.G) ... Appellant
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Through : Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Rama Trade Center,
Bilaspur (C.G) ... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Mukesh Sharma, for appellant.
Shri M.L. Agrawal, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 26 /03/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 14/07/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.291/2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, alleging deficiency in service against the respondent Insurance Company and seeking compensation of Rs.2,15,771/-, on account of damages to the insured vehicle, has been dismissed on the ground that driver of the vehicle was // 2 // having two licence at the same time, out of which one was fake and forged document.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that appellant/complainant, is registered owner of vehicle No.C.G.10-C-1732, which was insured by the respondent Insurance Company under a Comprehensive Insurance Policy and driver of the questioned vehicle, under the employment of appellant was Azharuddin Ansari. The said vehicle suffered a road accident on 08.11.2008 at Village Lagra, Seepat Road, District Bilaspur. The intimation of the accident was given to the Insurance Company. Then, the vehicle was carried to the repairing shop. A claim was preferred by the appellant before the Insurance Company, which was repudiated by the Insurance Company, on the ground that driving licence, which was produced by the complainant regarding his driver, was found a fake document on investigation and appellant again produced second licence of the same driver and requested the Insurance Company to reconsider his claim. But, the Insurance Company has not reconsidered his claim, so a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum.
3. In reply of the complaint, the Insurance Company reiterated the same defences that driver of the vehicle in question, was having a fake and forged driving licence, so he was not competent and was having no valid authority to drive the vehicle. This licence was never issued by // 3 // R.T.O., Aasansol in favour of driver Azharuddin Ansari. The second licence, which was produced after five months from repudiation of claim was also suspicious & was contrary to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by both parties has dismissed the complaint.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
6. From the record, it is clear that in the claim application, the description of the licence of driver of the questioned vehicle Azharuddin Ansari was given, which were regarding the driving licence issued by R.T.O., Aasansol. The photocopy of the driving licence was also given to the Insurance Company, along with claim form and thereafter the Insurance Company conducted an investigation and on the basis of Report given by R.T.O., Aasansol, it was found that driving licence No.WB/37/3017, was issued by that Licensing Authority, Aasansol, in the name of Mr. Pratham Roy and not in the name of Azharuddin Ansari. Thus, the driving licence produced by the complainant was a fake document.
7. Thereafter, complainant also wrote a letter (Annexure NA- 9) to the Insurance Company, in which it has been stated that he has received // 4 // intimation of repudiation of his claim. He further stated that he wanted to tell the Insurance Company that to avoid harassment of the Police, the driver of his vehicle, was having two licences and there was another licence in the name of same driver bearing No.A-9668/2000/Durg. He has also annexed copy of that driving licence, along with this letter and prayed that his claim be reconsidered and amount be paid. Photocopy of the driving licence, which was sent along with this application shows that licence was issued in the name of Azharuddin Ansari by R.T.O., Durg. Before us also, counsel for the appellant has filed extract of driving licence as provided by R.T.O., Durg, which shows that R.T.O., Durg issued driving licence in favour of Azharuddin Ansari on 27.05.2000 initially for driving Non-transport Vehicle and Light Motor Vehicle. On 24.08.2002, an endorsement for driving Transport vehicle was also made in the licence.
8. Thus, the extract of driving licence provided by the Licensing Authority, Durg shows that second licence was issued in favour of Azharuddin Ansari in the year 2000. At that time, he was also holding licence purported to have been issued by R.T.O., Aasansol might be a fake document. Thus, for showing the authorities, he was holding two licences at the same time and as stated by the appellant insured, this was in the knowledge of the insured that the driver of the vehicle in question was having two licences at the same time. In such a situation, provision of // 5 // Section 6(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 comes into the operation, which prohibits a person to have two licences at the same time and the effect of this provision is that both licences become invalid. In the facts of the present case, the story further travels to that extent that out of these two licences, one was a fake and forged document in the knowledge of the driver and might also be in the knowledge of the insured.
9. Similar question was earlier considered by this Commission in the case of M/s Kamal Associates Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009(4) CPR 133 and the opinion of this Commission in this regard in paragraph no.14 of the order is that "the Law says that no one can have more than one driving licence. The appellant is relying on two different driving licences issued in favour of the same person, praying that on the basis of these licences claim be awarded. We do not agree with this contention and are not prepared to ignore the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act." Ultimately, the claim of that complainant was also dismissed. We still have the same view and are of the view that if a person is holding two licences at the same time, then the effect of Section 6(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would be that none of the licences, would be deemed as valid licence and the person will be presumed as having no driving licence. Apart from it, violation of provisions of Section 6(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also amounts material violation of provisions of law, as well as terms of the insurance policy and so also, the Insurance Company // 6 // can not be directed to comply the terms of such policy, which has been violated by the insured himself on material terms.
10. Thus, we find that District Forum, has not committed any mistake or error in dismissing the complaint of the appellant herein. This appeal has got no substance and is liable to be, and, is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/03/2011 /03/2011