State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Durga Devi Markam vs Sr. B.M. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 12 January, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.563/2010
Instituted on 17.09.10
Smt. Durga Devi Markam,
W/o Shri R. S. Markam,
C - 24, Panchwati Colony,
DHAMTARI (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Sr. Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Nr. Adarsh Bal Mandir,
DHAMTARI (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Rajesh Pandey, for appellant.
Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, for respondent.
ORAL ORDER Dated: 12/01/2011 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against order dated 05.07.10, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.72/09, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein for seeking compensation, in respect of own damage to the insured vehicle, has been dismissed on the ground that the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service in not paying any compensation in view of the fact that the driver of the vehicle was having a forged licence in his possession.
// 2 //
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that a vehicle TATA Sumo of the registered ownership of complainant was insured by the respondent insurance company for a period between 02.10.08 to 01.10.09, which suffered a road accident on 16.01.09 and was extensively damaged. Then the complainant preferred a claim before the insurance company for a sum of Rs.2,33,297.70p. which was spent by her on repairing of the vehicle, but the claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and so no amount was payable to the complainant. Then a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum. In reply of which also the insurance company averred that surveyor as well as the investigator were appointed by them for proper investigation in respect of the driving licence, and to assess the loss to the insured vehicle in the accident. It was found by the investigator that at the relevant time the driver was not having valid and effective licence. In view of this report of the investigator, the claim was repudiated and in doing so, the insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service.
3. The District Forum agreed with the contentions raised by the insurance company and dismissed the complaint.
// 3 //
4. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
5. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon driving licence Annexure-3 filed by the complainant before District Forum and submitted that this driving licence was issued to the driver of the vehicle in year year 2000 and was valid up to 2020. Thus, he was having valid and effective driving licence and was driving the vehicle on the basis of such licence. He has further submitted that inquiry in respect of the driving licence was made from RTO, Raipur which has issued certificate Annexure-4 to certify that driving licence in the name of Rajesh Kumar Sahu was issued on 08.09.2000, whereas counsel for the respondent submitted that when the incident was reported to the police and police seized driving licence of the driver then licence in the name of Rajesh Hirwani, issued on 19.07.07 was produced by the driver which was seized by the police. This driving licence was found fake document and was found not issued by any RTO. It has also been submitted by him that in the claim form submitted by the complainant, before the insurance company, description of the same driving licence was given and name of the driver was also shown as Rajesh Hirwani. Thus the driver was employed by the complainant on the basis of forged and fake driving licence and therefore the insurance company had not committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim.
// 4 //
6. We have gone through the documents referred by both the counsels and found that the investigator Mr. Agrawal by his report dated 30.03.09, after full verification of the driving licence from the Office of DTO, Lakhimpur, has found that the driving licence was not issued by that Licencing Authority and no record in respect of that driving licence was found in the Office of that Licencing Authority. But, we find that no certificate has been issued by the D.T.O. Lakhimpur, Assam to show that the driving licence was not issued by its Office nor any affidavit of Mr. Agrawal, who sought information from the Office of DTO, Lakhimpur has been filed. In absence of any affidavit of Mr. Agrawal or any certificate of the concerning authority, it is difficult to believe that the driving licence, which was seized by the police during investigation, was not issued by that Licencing Authority.
7. Facing this situation counsel for the respondent submitted that an opportunity be provided to the respondent to produce sufficient material in support of this contention that the driving licence was not issued by the Licencing Authority Lakhimpur, Assam. He has also drawn our attention towards photocopy of the claim form filed by the complainant before the insurance company, such claim form was not filed before the District Forum. In that claim form, as argued by // 5 // counsel for the respondent, the name of the driver has been mentioned as Rajesh Hirwani and the description of the driving licence is also in respect of the licence issued in favour of Rajesh Hirwani. Counsel for the respondent seeks opportunity for filing that claim form also to prove this fact that this claim form was produced by the complainant before the insurance company.
8. We further find that the certificate issued by RTO, Raipur does not bear any seal or any dispatch number. Original certificate was addressed to RTO, Dhamtari, but later on someone replaced the name of the driver R.K. Sahu at the place of RTO Dhamtari by erasing RTO Dhamtari. This interpolation in the document makes it doubtful. In view of this, counsel for the complainant also seeks opportunity for filing fresh certificate of RTO Raipur, to show that a valid licence was issued in favour of Rajesh Kumar Sahu, who was appointed by the complainant at the relevant time and that licence was first in time and therefore was valid and effective.
9. In view of the prayer made by both parties, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum with direction to provide one opportunity to both parties for filing fresh evidence regarding the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle in question and then to decide the matter // 6 // afresh on merits, after collecting such evidence. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 14.02.11. No order as to cost.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
12/01/2011 12/01/2011 12/01/2011