State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Rattan Singh on 30 March, 2009
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 487/2007. Date of Decision 30.3.2009. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Patiala through its Senior Divisional Manager, IIIrd Floor, Block No.7, SDA Complex, Shimla 171 009. ..Appellant. Versus Sh. Rattan Singh S/o Sh. Paras Ram R/o Vill. Behran, PO & Tehsil Jhandutta, Distt. Bilaspur, HP. .Respondent. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Honble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved for reporting?
For the Appellant. Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) This matter was partly heard on 1.1.2009 during Circuit at Bilaspur, after hearing the parties following order was passed:-
When hearing in this case commenced, by referring to Annexure C-3 attached with the complaint by the respondent as well as Annexure R-5, report given by Shri Rajeev Razdan, Surveyor, after verification of the driving licence from the licensing Authority, Dharamshala and his affidavit, Annexure R-11, Mr. Ratish Sharma submitted that driving licence in question had not been issued by concerned Registering & Licensing Authority, Dharamshala. Therefore, according to him, this is a case of fake driving licence. Thus, the District Forum below fell into error while passing the impugned order and ignoring these documents. To the contrary, Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the license issued by the concerned Registering & Licensing Authority, Dharamshala, is genuine.
Further according to him, neither Annexure R-5, nor Annexure R-11 advances the case of the appellant because report pertains to driving licence at Sr. No. 3015/D is of 25.2.1974, whereas in the present case licence is of the year 1987.
We feel that with a view to come to a correct conclusion as well as for doing complete justice between the partiers, let original record relating to driving licence No. 3015/D-Sala/87 issued by the Registering & Licensing Authority, Dharamshala, be produced and the said authority is directed to produce or cause to be produced original driving licence with register as well as file if any maintained in his office pertaining to the driving licence No. 3015/D-Sala/87 issued in favour of Shri Biru Ram son of Shri Durga Ram, Vill. Darghat, PO Jejwin, District Bilaspur, HP. It is clearly understood between the parties that in the event of driving licence having been issued by said authority, expenses of appearance of witness with record will be borne by the Insurance Company. And in case it is not so issued, expenses will be borne by the respondent. Be listed on 30.3.2009 at Shimla.
Summons be sent to the Registering and Licensing Authority, Dharamshala, alongwith copy of this order.
2. Today Mr. Vaneet Kumar, Motor Licensing Clerk from the office of Registering and Licensing Authority, Dharamshala, District Kangra is present along with original record of DL No. 3015/D dated 25.2.1974.
3. According to the record produced by him which we have examined, as also was shown to learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that licence in question had not been issued in favour of Shri Biru Ram son of Shri Durga Ram, Vill. Darghat, PO Jejwin, District Bilaspur, HP. To the contrary it has been issued as per record brought by the official, this licence has been issued in favour of Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Baldev Singh R/o Badukhar, PO Indora, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt Kangra, HP.
4. Original record brought by the official has been returned after it was perused by learned counsel for the parties and by us.
5. Claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that driver Biru Ram S/o Durga Ram was not holding a genuine driving licence. Its further case was that it was issued in favour of Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh and was valid for LMV only.
In addition to this, stand of the respondent was that the surveyor wrongly assessed the loss to the vehicle at the rate of Rs. 35,000/-. This assessment is arbitrary, as the complainant had incurred a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the repair of the vehicle.
6. In the face of the above position that emerges from the original record relating to the licence in question, it is evident that Biru Ram driver was not holding driving licence in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. To the contrary the licence held by him was fake, i.e. non-est in the eyes of law.
Once this conclusion is arrived at, the disposal of this appeal need not detain us. For taking this view, he place reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, IV (2007) CPJ 1 (SC) and of National Commission in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rishi Jaiswal & Anr., II (2007) CPJ 97 (NC).
7. Faced with this situation Mr. Chauhan submitted that his client acted bonafide and was satisfied after having examined the licence of the driver who was otherwise driving the vehicle properly and nothing untoward was observed by him, as such according to him the impugned order needs to be upheld while dismissing the appeal. This plea is being noted to be rejected.
8. This is admittedly a case of own damage being claimed by the respondent, and what is the effect of a fake licence is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, III (2007) CPJ 13 (SC). What was held and is relevant in the context of submission of Mr. Chauhan on behalf of the respondent for upholding the order of the District Forum below was as under:-
In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge:
(1) The decision in Swaran Singhs case (supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks.
(2) Where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality.
(3) In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised to recover the same from the insured.(4)
The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act.
The High Courts/Commissions shall now consider the matter afresh in the light of the position in law as delineated above.
These observations completely negate the case of the respondent.
9. Nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice on behalf of the respondent so as to dismiss this appeal.
10. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly and as a result of it order dated 19.9.2007 passed by District Forum Bilaspur, in Consumer Complaint No. 12/2006 is hereby quashed and set aside consequently the complaint stands dismissed.
Mr. Chauhan has paid Rs.
815/- towards road and diet money to the official who produced the record as aforesaid.
All interim orders passed form time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith and at the same time the entire deposited amount with upto date interest accrued on it will be remitted by the office to the appellant.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
30th March, 2009 (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
/K/ President.
(Saroj Sharma) Member.
(Chander Shekher Sharma) Member.