KIROLA GRAMIN VIKAS SAMITI vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2001 passed by the District Forum, Nainital rejecting the claim petition of complainant Kirola Gramin Vikas Samiti, which society was an owner of truck which met with accident on 30.1.1999.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant Kirola Gramin Vikas Samiti is a registered society. It was the owner of the truck No. UP-02-D-0192. It met with an accident on 30.1.1999 by fall in the Khad and was damaged. On the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured for Rs. 5,00,000/-. THE complainant informed the Insurance Company. A Surveyor was appointed who visited the spot and surveyed it and declared the vehicle totally damaged. On the directions of the Insurance Company, the truck was brought to a garrage at Haldwani. THE Surveyor found the value of the salvage as Rs. 1,00,000/- and it was sold to Bhargav Motors for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. But, on 29.6.1999 the Insurance Company repudiated the claim. Hence, the petition. It is alleged that the repudiation was made on the ground that the driver has got no valid licence. He has licence No. 23467/K/94 and which was issued on 22.1.1994. It was endorsed to drive transport vehicles on 26.2.1995 and on 28.4.1998, it was endorsed for H.G.B. on all roads of Kumaon Division. THE complainant has seen the licence and then appointed driver. From the perusal of the complaint, it is to be noticed that it is not in the complaint when the complainant has seen the licence whether it was valid on the date of accident, when it was renewed, if any. THE complainant, however, admitted the entries that have been made in the R.T.O. Office of Kath Godam. THE said driver died in the accident. It is alleged in the petition that the complainant had submitted all papers to the Insurance Company although all papers have not been mentioned. But, if the complainant had all the papers after the death of driver, he should have received the driving licence as well which is always kept along with the papers of the vehicle. The allegations regarding the driver are in paras 8 and 9 of the written statement. It is alleged that the driver was not having a valid licence. In para 10 of the written statement, Insurance Company pleaded that the licence of Prem Singh was not valid for driving on hill roads and it was not renewed after 21.1.1997. It is, further pleaded that in order to get the claim, the complainant has got a forged and duplicate licence of Prem Singh showing that it has been renewed from 11.2.1999 to 10.2.2002. No replication appears to have been filed against this pleading. However, after the evidence of the parties, the learned Forum found that the licence of Prem Singh was forged, it was also not endorsed for hilly areas. Therefore, the learned Forum rejected the claim petition against which order, the present appeal has been filed.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether Prem Singh was having a valid licence on the date of accident, whether after his death, the licence was forged to get the claim and whether Prem Singh was entitled to drive the vehicle on hill roads. There is a definite finding of the Forum that a forgery has been committed. Both the parties admitted the forgery. According to the complainant, it has been done by the opposite party, Insurance Company. According to the Insurance Company, Insurance Company does not indulge in these activities nor it has got any reason or motive to go to the R.T.O. Office to bribe them and to get the licence and the records of the R.T.O. Office forged. The proceedings before the Forum are summary proceedings. Forum is not entitled to go into the detailed evidence of forgery etc. Either of the two parties might have done this forgery. But the forgery is there. If it has been done by the complainant, it looses all its rights to get any compensation because a fraud-doer is not entitled to the protection of the Court or the Forum. If it has been done by the Insurance Company, it should pay the entire claim. The learned Counsel for the complainant referred the ruling reported in I (2003) CPJ 204 (NC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramdhan Aggarwal, and II (2002) CPJ 67, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pratap Kumar Das, to show that even the driver was not having a valid licence then also the claim should not have been repudiated and payment should have been made on non-standard basis. We could agree with this argument, but in a case like total fraud, even no payment should be made on non-standard basis. In the circumstances as such, we agree with the finding as given by the learned Forum that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation by the Forum. However, the claimant is free to get these controversies decided in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and may get his claim, if it is able to prove its case of fraud against the Insurance Company. We have confined ourselves to the factual position of the case. We have not given any finding regarding fraud. However, any finding by us or any finding given by the District Forum should not, in any way, prejudice the finding to be recorded by the Civil Court, if such a suit is filed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. However with a liberty to the claimant to file a regular suit in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Cost of the appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.