AMAN RANA vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

This revision petition is directed against the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, "State Commission") dated 5.4.2013 whereby State Commission allowed the appeal No.1006/2008 preferred by the respondent/insurance company, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the Car No.PB10BL-7398 belonging to the petitioner was insured with the respondent/insurance company. During the currency of the insurance, the car met with an accident while it was being driven by Rajiv Khera, brother-in-law of the petitioner/complainant. Consequently, the car suffered damage. Accident was reported to the insurance company. It is the case of the petitioner that the workshop raised a bill of Rs.3,91,265/- for repair of the car. The insurance claim of the petitioner, however, was repudiated on the ground that the subject vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by a person who was not authorized to drive the car. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint.

The consumer complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the car was not holding driving licence.

District Forum, on appraisal of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and directed the respondent/opposite party to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.3,51,220/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-.

Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent/opposite party preferred an appeal. The State Commission vide its impugned order dated 5.4.2013 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. This has led to the filing of the revision petition.

Shri Updip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is based upon assumption. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that learned District Forum in order to verify authenticity of the renewed driving license of driver Rajiv Khera, summoned the record of the Transport Authority, Amritsar, but the record could not be produced on the ground that it has been destroyed in a bomb blast in the year 1999. It is argued that in absence of any authentic evidence to show that the renewed driving license produced in the District Forum is fake the conclusion of the of the State Commission in this regard cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, learned counsel has referred to the testimony of Kishan Singh, Steno Typist, Transport Authority, Amritsar.

Learned counsel for the opposite party on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. He has stated that from the statement of Kishan Singh, it is clear that the driving licence produced before District Forum was fake because as per the photograph available in the register produced by Kishan Singh, the photograph did not tally with the photograph on the driving licence claimed to be issued in favour of Rajiv Khera.

We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Sole question for determination in this revision petition is whether the State Commission was right in holding that the driving licence produced before the District Forum was a fake driving licence?

In order to find answer to the above question, it would be useful to have a look on the relevant driving license Ext. C-15 which is reproduced as under: "Driving Licence No.2519/ASR

Date of Issue : 3.5.1986

Name : RAJIV KHERA 30874

Son of : OM PARKASH

Date of Birth : 25.5.1971

Address : Basant Avenue, Rattan Singh Chowk

W.No.15, Amritsar Ex.C-15 3575-R DCF

Scooter & Car only ASR 15/4/2008

Date of Issue : 7.9.1994

Sd/ Valid upto 24.6.2011

Rajiv Khera Sd/

Issuing Authority, Amritsar"

On reading of the above, it is clear that driving license No.2519/ASR was initially issued in the name of Rajiv Khera by Transport Authority, Amritsar on 3.5.1986. The said driving license was renewed on 7.9.1994 authorising Rajiv Khera to drive Scooter and Car only. The validity of this driving license has been shown as upto 24.6.2011, meaning thereby that this driving license was issued on 7.9.1994 for a period of approximately 16 years and 9 months. Section 14 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the validity upto which the driving license issued by the Transport Authority would be effective. Said provision reads as under: - "(b) in the case of any other licence,?

(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of 3[fifty years] on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,? 3[fifty years] on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,?"

(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or

(B) until the date on which such person attains the age of 3[fifty years], 3[fifty years]," whichever is earlier; 4[(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:] 1[(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:]

Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry."

On reading of the above, it is clear that the driving license, if genuine, ought to have been for a period of 20 years or till the date on which the driver attained the age of 50 years, whichever is earlier. The purported driving license relied upon by the complainant does not confirm the above condition because 20 years period from the date of issue ought to have been upto 6 th September, 2014 and the purported application for driving license would have attained age of 50 years on 24.5.2021. The validity date given in the license relied upon by the complainant is neither 6.9.2014 nor 24.5.2021 and instead it is mentioned as 24.6.2011. This circumstance in itself indicates that the driving license of Rajiv Khera Ext.C-15 is not a genuine license. Otherwise also, Kishan Singh, Steno Typist of Transport Authority, Amritsar, who deposed in the District Forum on the basis of record, admitted in his cross-examination that the photographs holder of relevant driving license originally issued in the register does not tally with the photograph on driving license Ext. C-15 produced in the District Forum. This circumstance also confirms the conclusion that the driving license Ext. C-15 relied upon by the complainant is a fake document.

In view of the discussion above, it is clear that the driving license of Rajiv Khera relied upon by the complainant is fake. Therefore, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. The petitioner has failed to show any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.