State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Shri Abdul Alim Khan on 12 July, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2442)
Appeal No.161/2011
Instituted on : 08/03/2011
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3,
Madina Manzil, Jail Road, Kutchery Chowk,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Shri Abdul Alim Khan,
S/o Shri Abdul Aziz Khan,
R/o : Kalinagar, New Shanti Nagar, Near Nala,
In Front of Baba Kirana Stores,
Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Proprietor,
M/s Vandana Auto, G.E. Road, Ramkund,
Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Proprietor,
Bajaj Auto Quality Parikrama,
Zone No.1, First Floor, M.P. Nagar,
Bhopal (M.P.) ... Respondents
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 Vinod Deshmukh, for appellant.
Shri Jogendar Rao, for respondent No.1.
Shri A.A. Saify, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
// 2 //
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 12/07/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 15/02/2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.127/2010, whereby the appellant/Insurance Company, has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.29,699/- to the respondent No.1/complainant, along with interest @ 6% p.a. with effect from 15/02/2010 till date of payment, and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.500/- as cost of litigation on account of damages to the insured vehicle in a road accident.
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that a motorcycle bearing No.C.G.04-CW-2452, was of the registered ownership of the respondent No.1/complainant and was insured by the appellant/Insurance Company under an Insurance Policy, which was effective on the date of incident. On 24.02.2008, when the respondent No1/complainant was driving the vehicle and his wife as well as girl of four years of age, were riding on the vehicle along with him & were proceeding towards Village Singhangarh, then about two kms before reaching Village Saja, all of a sudden on account of some mechanical fault, incident of fire occurred in the motorcycle. The // 3 // complainant, his wife and the small girl immediately alighted the vehicle and then the vehicle burnt to ashes on the spot in their presence. The incident was reported to the Police and to the Insurance Company also. In the complaint, it has also been averred that the vehicle in question, was having some manufacturing defect, so it burnt. Initially a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum only against the manufacturer and dealer of the motorcycle. Later on, during the pendency of the case, by amendment dated 17.08.2010, the appellant/Insurance Company, was also made party in the consumer complaint and it was prayed that compensation of Rs.44,625/-, which was cost of the vehicle, along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, be awarded.
3. The appellant/Insurance Company in the written version has specifically averred that the Insurance Company, was not liable to pay any compensation and the complaint was not maintainable against it before the District Forum, as the driver of the vehicle, was not having valid and effective driving licence and the copy of the driving licence, which was provided by the driver to the Insurance Company, was found to be a fake document.
4. The manufacturer and dealer, have also denied their liability with the defence that the vehicle was not properly maintained and // 4 // was not brought by the complainant for servicing in time to the Service Centre of the company.
5. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it, allowed the complaint against the appellant/Insurance Company alone.
6. We have heard arguments advanced by all parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
7. Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention towards copy of the driving licence produced by the respondent no.1/complainant before the District Forum and the Report of R.T.O., Raipur, which was filed by the Insurance Company. From these documents, it appears that as per the case of the respondent No.1/complainant, he was having a driving licence, which was valid from 14.06.2003 to 13.06.2017. There was a seal impression of Registering Authority, R.T.O., Raipur. But, when information was sought by the Investigator of the Insurance Company from the office of the R.T.O., Raipur, and the photocopy of the driving licence, which was produced by the respondent no.1/complainant before the District Forum, was forwarded to the R.T.O., Raipur, then it was certified by the R.T.O., Raipur that the driving licence No.A/Miss/745/R/05 in // 5 // the name of Dr. Abdul Alim Khan, was not issued by the office of R.T.O., Raipur.
8. This Certificate, produced by the appellant/Insurance Company clearly shows that the driving licence, which was produced by the respondent No.1/complainant before the Insurance Company, was not genuine driving licence, but was a forged and fake document, because the R.T.O., Raipur has not verified the document, whereas the claim of the complainant/respondent No.1 was that it was issued by that authority.
9. Learned District Forum, vide the impugned order has awarded 75% of the amount of assessment made by the Surveyor on non- standard basis following the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited., 2010 (4) S.C.C. 536, but the appellant/Insurance Company, before the District Forum had relied on case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Laxminarayan Dhut, M.P.L.J. 2007 Part-3 Page-25 as well as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Devender Singh, M.P.L.J. 2008 Part-2 Page-149. In the aforesaid cases, there was clear mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that a fake and forged document, will always remain a forged document and will never be treated as a genuine licence even after its renewal. This observation was in connection of the driving licence and in that case // 6 // also driving licence was found as forged document and so, Hon'ble Supreme Court has denied to grant any relief on the basis of such forged document. Same are the facts of case before the District Forum. So far as case of Amalendu Sahoo (Supra), is concerned, the facts of that case were altogether different. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo (Supra), was not applicable in the facts of the present case.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order recorded by the District Forum, is not sustainable, so, the appeal is allowed . The impugned order is set aside and the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant against the appellant/Insurance Company is dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/07/2011 /07/2011 /07/2011