National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rajender Prasad Yadav vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 9 February, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2606 OF 2019 (Against the Order dated 14/10/2019 in Appeal No. 351/2019 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. RAJENDER PRASAD YADAV S/O. SHRI SITARAM, R/O. DHANI PHUTLI, ARIYAAN SHRI MADHOPUR, DISTRICT-SIKAR RAJASTHAN ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER, REG. OFFICE FIRST DIGAMBER JAIN, DHARAMSHALA M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.),PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : FOR THE PETITIONER : MR.AVINISH DAVE, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : FOR THE RESPONDENT : MS.SUMAN BAGGA, ADVOCATE
Dated : 09 February 2024 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the "Act") against impugned order dated 14.10.2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 351/2019. In this case, the Appeal of the Respondent/Opposite Party (OP) was allowed and dismissed the complaint of the Petitioner/Complainant. Vide the Order dated 18.03.2019, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur-III (the "District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 362 of 2016 partly allowed the complaint filed by the Complainant.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he is the owner of vehicle No. RJ-41-GA-2938 which was properly insured under the Insurance Policy No.05200031150110000207 with the Opposite Party (OP) from 10.06.2015 to 09.06.2016. On 25.06.2015, the said vehicle was involved in a collision with another truck, resulting in significant damage. The incident was reported both to the Sanganer, Jaipur Police Station (FIR No. 828/2015) and OP. A surveyor appointed by the OP assessed the loss to be around Rs.4,00,566/-. Subsequently, the insured vehicle underwent repairs, and a claim was submitted. However, the OP repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the grounds that at time of the accident the driver of the Complainant's vehicle did not have a valid driving license.
4. Aggrieved by the claim repudiation, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint (No. 362/2016 of 2009) before the District Forum seeking relief of Rs.5,55,027/- towards loss along with compensation for harassment and litigation cost.Top of Form
5. Upon notice, the OP filed their reply, denying the claim and contended that the claim was denied due to the insured deliberately breaching the terms and conditions outlined in the insurance policy, rendering the claim void and illegitimate. The repudiation of the claim stemmed from the driver of the insured vehicle holding an invalid and ineffective driving license.
6. The District Forum vide order dated 18.03.2019 allowed the complaint in part and granted the following relief:
"ORDER So, it is ordered by accepting the complaint of the complainant partially against the respondent insurance company that insurance company to make payment of Rs.4,00,566/- in words Rs. Four Lakhs Five Hundred and Sixty Six only and to pay simple interest on this amount at the rate of Rs. nine percent per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. dated: 19.07.16. Besides this, complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 3000/- in words Rs. Three Thousand for the mental harassment & agony suffered by him & Rs. 2000/- Rs. Two thousand as case expenses. Time of one month is given for the compliance of the order. In case of failure for complying with this order in the given period. complainant is entitled to receive simple interest on the amount for the above said mental harassment & agony and case expenses at the rate of nine percent per annum from today till actual realization." (Extracted from Translated copy)
7. Being aggrieved by District forum order, the OP filed an Appeal and vide Order dated 14.10.2019, the State Commission allowed the Appeal and with the following observation: -
"Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.
There is no dispute about the fact that Dharamraj was not having effective driving licence as it was forged one but the contention of the respondent is that as the deceased Dharamraj, the driver of the impugned vehicle was not responsible for the accident the claim has rightly been allowed and reliance has been placed on 2016 (1) R.A.R. 19 (SC) Lakshmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance where the issue was as regard to over loading of the passengers which is not the case here but the Supreme Court has held that breach of the policy must not be fundamental in nature which brings the contract to an end and here in the present case when the driver was not having valid driving licence it was fundamental breach and claim should have been dismissed.
The respondent has further relied upon judgment passed by the apex court in Civil Appeal No. 4647/2003 Jitendra Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. where the loss was due to fire and hence, claim was allowed which is not the case here. Here the driver was plying the vehicle without having a valid driving licence. Hence, the claim should have been dismissed and the appellant has rightly relied upon I (2019) CPJ 393 (NC) United India Insurance Co. Vs. Ramlal, I (2018) CPJ 161 (NC) Meera Dhuria Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance, I (2018) CPJ 429 (NC) Parsnath Jha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., I (2017) CPJ 277 (NC) Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Prem Lata Purohit and II (2012)CPJ594(NC) National Insurance Co. Vs. Shiv Shankar Soni where forged documents/driving licence was submitted and repudiation was found justified.
In view of the above, when the vehicle was plied without valid and effective driving licence, it was fundamental breach and repudiation was justified. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 18.3.2019 is set aside."
8. Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2019 of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.
9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant argued that this case is entirely based on the premise that the Driving License of driver of the insured vehicle not valid at the time of accident and thus, the Respondent/OP has no liability to pay the claim. The learned Counsel relied on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corp., (1996) 6 SCC 428 at page 432:
"9. ...... Thereon, the surveyor inspected and submitted his report on 30-10-1990. Thereafter, the insurance company is required to take a decision. Admittedly, 5 months have elapsed for taking decision to reject the claims. We think that a reasonable time of two months would be justified for them to take a decision whether claim requires to be settled or rejected in accordance with the policy. Therefore, two months would be computed from 30-10-1990. Accordingly, we give the benefit of the time taken to decide the claim up to 31-12- 1990. The appellant-insurer is liable to pay interest from 1-1-1991 till date of payment.
10. He also relied on Vadodara Municipal Corp. v. Purshottam V. Murjani, (2014) 16 SCC 14: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 389: (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 397: 2014 SCC OnLine SC 698 at page 21:
14......... The victims were consumers and the contractor was the service provider. Deficiency of service stood established. The stand of the Insurance Company based on the second policy dated 1-12-1992 limiting its liability is untenable. Having issued policy dated 1-11-1992 covering loss to the extent of Rs 20 lakhs per accident with Rs 80 lakhs as maximum in one year, the Insurance Company could not avoid its responsibility, as rightly held concurrently by the State Commission and NCDRC. Risk was required to be statutorily covered under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. The Insurance bound by the Insurance Development Authority Company was and Regulation of Policyholders Interests) Regulations, 2002 under the Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 and the law laid down in M.K.J. Corpn. (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corpn., (1996) 6 SCC 428) Pushpalaya Printers (United India Insurance Co. v. Pushpalaya Printers, (2004) 3 SCC 694) Ltd. v. and Asha Goel (LIC v. Asha Goel, (2001) 2 SCC 160, rightly referred to by Ncdrc in its order Vadodara Municipal Corpn. v. Purshottam V. Murjani, First Appeal No. 464 of 2002, decided on 2-11-2006 (NC).
11. He further relied upon the judgment of National Insurance co ltd vs Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, 2004 SCC (Cri) 733 the Court has held as under: (SCC pp. 336-37, para 89):
"89. ....If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence."
12. He further relied on Jitendra Kumar vs Oriental Insurance Co. (2003) 6 SCC 420 in paras 9 & 10, observed as under:
"9. The question then is : Can the Insurance Company repudiate a claim made by the owner of the vehicle which is duly insured with the Company, solely on the ground that the driver of the vehicle who had nothing to do with the accident did not hold a valid licence? The answer to this question, in our opinion, should be in the NEGATIVE.
Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on which reliance was placed by the State Commission, in our opinion, does not come to the aid of the Insurance Company in repudiating a claim where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim wherein the vehicle in question is damaged due to an accident to which driver of the vehicle who does not hold a valid driving licence is responsible in any manner. It does not empower the Insurance Company to repudiate a claim for damages which has occurred due to acts to which the driver has not, in any manner, contributed i.e. damages incurred due to reasons other than the act of the driver.
13. He further relied on Nirmala Kothari Vs United India Insurance Co Ltd order dt 04.03.2020, 2020 SCC OnLineSC 286 "12. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149/2)(a)(ii) and the would be able under would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence.
However, if the insurance company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable.
13. On facts, in the instant case, the appellant complainant had employed the driver, Dharmendra Singh as driver after checking his driving licence. The driving licence was purported to have been issued by the licensing authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi, however, the same could not be verified as the officer concerned of the licensing authority deposed that the record of the licence was not available with them. It is not the contention of the respondent insurance company that the appellant complainant is guilty of wilful negligence while employing the driver. The driver had been driving competently and there was no reason for the appellant complainant to doubt the veracity of the driver's licence.
14. He also argued in favour of the order passed by the District Forum. He sought to allow the present Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission.
15. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that Petitioner/Complainant filed a meritless petition which does not disclose any substantial grounds for intervention of this Commission. This case is entirely based on the premise that the driving license of driver of the insured vehicle was not valid at the time of accident and thus, the respondent has no liability to pay the claim. He argued in favour of the order passed by the learned State Commission. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition.
16. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.
17. The main issue in the instant case is whether the claim for damage sustained by a vehicle in a road accident is admissible, when the driver of such vehicle was in possession of a forged and invalid driving license at the time of the accident?
18. The Respondent's primary concern revolves around the validity of the Driving License of the driver, at the time of accident and challenged the acceptance of the forged license by the District Forum, despite presenting evidence from the District Transport Office confirming that the license was forged. Their arguments revolve around proving the fundamental breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition with respect to the driver's valid license and its direct contribution to the accident. This becomes crucial in determining the admissibility of the insurance claim. There is no third-party claim under dispute. The claim in question is that of owner/ insured himself who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person who has no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle, which had met with the accident. This is in breach of Motor Vehicles Act as well as terms of the insurance contract in question. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief from the insurer under the policy in question.
19. Based on the discussions above, I do not find that the learned State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or there is any material irregularity or illegality in the order of the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 351 of 2019 dated 14.10.2019.
20. There is no merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, Dismissed.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. AllTop of Form pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
................................................................................... AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (Retd.) PRESIDING MEMBER