New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Akshay Deep Singh

Sudip Ahluwalia,  Member

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against Respondent/Complainant challenging the impugned Order dated 20.09.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, in First Appeal bearing No. 834 of 2015. Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal, in Complaint No. 69/13.

The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant being the registered owner of Vehicle TATA LPT - 909 bearing registration No. HR-64-6107 had insured the said vehicle with the Opposite Party at Kaithal from 23.08.2011 to 22.08.2012. The said vehicle met with an accident on 28.01.2012 while going from Ladwa to Kurukshetra and was badly damaged. The Opposite Party was informed at the earliest and the damaged vehicle was inspected by its Surveyors. It was the case of the Complainant that the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time namely, Ramdhan S/o Mewa Singh R/o ViII., Reherian Tehsil & District Kaithal, was holding a valid license No. 61164 dated 27.11.1986 originally issued by the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad (AP). The Complainant kept visiting the Opposite Party for release of the claim amount that was spent on repair of the damaged vehicle i.e. Rs.2,28,319/- and Rs.3,000/- for crane loading. The claim was repudiated vide letter dated 06.09.2012 on the ground that the Driving License could not be found and License Authority, Hyderabad, orally clarified to the agents of the Opposite Party that the above Driving License was not issued in Hyderabad and during investigation, it was found that the above Driving License is fake. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in services by the Opposite Party in repudiating the claim illegally, arbitrarily and without any cause, and seeking payment of Rs.2,31,319/- spent on repairs with interest, Compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,500/- as Fees of Counsel.

The Opposite Party appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended by the Opposite Party that it registered the claim promptly and T.P. Singh & Co., an independent Company was appointed as Surveyor and Loss Assessor for final survey who, vide Report dated 03.03.2012, assessed the net loss to the extent of Rs.1,85,579/-. It was contended that the original Driving License no. 61164/LA/Hyderabad was shown to be issued from Hyderabad. Accordingly, Mr. K. Ramachander Rao, an independent Investigator from Hyderabad was deputed to verify the said Driving License from LA Hyderabad, who, vide his Report bearing No. NIA/RO/File No.201/2012/13 dated 12.04.2013 reported that the Driving License was not issued in Hyderabad Zone, Secunderabad Zone and Ranga Reddy Zone of RTA offices and during investigation, the Driving License was found to be fake. It was also contended that even the Branch Office, Kaithal vide letter dated 08.08.2012 asked the Complainant to intimate from which RTA Zone, Hyderabad, the Driving License No. 61164/96 was issued but the Complainant failed to give any response. It was further the case of the Opposite Party that the driver Ram Dhan was the resident of Village Chandan, Distt Jind, Haryana, and he had allegedly obtained the Driving License from LA Hyderabad. Reliance was also placed on Section 9 Clause 1(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the judgement of this Commission in ‘Jai Parkash Goyal v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’ in Revision Petition bearing No. 408 of 2010 decided on 11.03.2010. Hence, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 06.09.2012 on the ground that the driver was not holding a valid driver’s license at the time of accident. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with special costs.

The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 10.08.2015 allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,85,579/- to the Complainant and Rs.5,000/- as compensation.

Aggrieved by the above Order, First Appeal bearing No. 834 of 2015 was filed by Appellant/Opposite Party against the Respondent/ Complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana.

The Ld. State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 20.09.2016 dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order of the Ld.  District Forum and observed inter alia:-

“6. A perusal of the record clearly shows that the vehicle had been insured with the OP and the accident took place during the subsistence of the insurance policy. Moreover, the vehicle was badly damaged in the accident, which was inspected and the loss assessed by the Surveyor. The Surveyor of the Company assessed the damage to the vehicle at Rs.1,85,579/-. It is further evident from the OP’s own document dated 29.08.2012 that the driving license no. 61164 of the driver was renewed by the license authority, RTA, Kaithal, which was valid up to 09.07.2014. Meaning thereby that when the accident took place on 28.01.2012, the driver was in possession of a valid driving license. The law stands settled on the subject that the assessment made by the Surveyor has to be honoured and accepted by the Civil Courts and Tribunals under the Consumers jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.1,85,579/- - the amount assessed by the surveyor. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against the above-mentioned impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the renewal of a fake driving license does not make the Driving License valid even though the renewed license has been found valid. The first and original License no. DL No. 61164 dated 27.11.1986 of Mr. Ramdhan, issued by Licensing Authority at Hyderabad, was found to be fake. The RTO, Kaithal (Haryana) had only renewed such fake Driving License which could not lend any sanctity to the same.

At the time of admission of the Revision Petition, the Petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to the Respondent/Complainant by way of Demand Draft to meet his travelling and sundry expenses with regard to the present proceedings, and the Petitioner was also directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with the District Forum.  Such Order was passed by the Commission on 23.8.2017.  Subsequently, appearance was put in on behalf of the Respondent by Mr. Vipul Raheja, Advocate, on 17.1.2018, but when the matter actually came up for hearing on 15.2.2018, no steps were taken on behalf of the Respondent, and till date none has appeared for the Respondent to contest the proceedings.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

It is to be noticed first of all that the District Forum had allowed the complaint by rejecting the defence of the Insurance Company that the original Licence of Shri Ram Dhan, Driver of the insured vehicle was found to be fake.  The Ld. District Forum had come to this conclusion on the reasoning that there were four Regional Transport Authority Offices in Hyderabad, but the Investigator had declared “the relevant DL No. 61164 as fake only on the basis of verification from three RTA Offices.  The Investigator is silent about fourth RTA of Hyderabad.”

Thereafter, the State Commission in deciding the Appeal filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Insurance Company just did not go into the question as to whether the reasoning of the District Forum to hold that the defence of “fake licence” raised by the Appellant was correct or not.  On the other hand, the Ld. State Commission by way of very cryptic observations dismissed the Appeal without even considering the question whether the original licence purportedly issued from the RTA, Hyderabad, could have been fake or not.  This would become clear on a plain reading of the entire reasoning dismissing the Appeal, recorded by the State Commission in Para 6 of its impugned Order, which is set out as below –

“6.   A perusal of the record clearly shows that the vehicle had been insured with the OP and the accident took place during the subsistence of the insurance Policy.  Moreover, the vehicle was badly damaged in the accident, which was inspected and the loss assessed by the Surveyor. The Surveyor of the Company assessed the damage to the vehicle at Rs. 1,85,579/-.  It is further evident from the OP’s own document dated 29.08.2012 that the driving license No. 61164 of the driver was renewed by the license authority, RTA, Kaithal, which was valid up to 09.07.2014.  Meaning thereby that when the accident took place on 28.01.2012, the driver was in possession of a valid driving license. The law stands settled on the subject that the assessment made by the Surveyor has to be honoured and accepted by the Civil Courts and Tribunals under the Consumers jurisdiction.  Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 1,85,579/- the amount assessed by the surveyor. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.”

It is, thus, seen that the version of the Appellant/Insurance Company to the effect that the original Driving Licence of the driver Ram Dhan which was claimed to have been issued from Hyderabad, and was subsequently got renewed from Kaithal, was not even referred to, or taken into consideration at all.

After dismissal of the Appeal, the Insurance Company filed the present Revision Petition in the year 2017, and when at an initial stage the matter fist came up for hearing on 17.5.2017, time was granted  by the then Presiding Member to the Petitioner’s side to file “Verification Report” of the Driving Licence in question.  Such Report alongwith copy of the disputed Driving Licence was filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Insurance Company way back on 17.8.2017.  Those documents happen to be Annexure-A3 collectively and perusal of the detailed Report issued by the Additional Licencing Authority, Hyderabad, goes to show that the Licence No. 61164 was issued on 8.7.1986 in the name of one YADAIAH son of LINGAIAH.  The said Licence was thereafter renewed on various dates such as 19.11.1998, 27.3.2003, 27.3.2006 and 2.12.2010, whereas the Licence of that number was separately shown to be renewed by the Licencing Authority at Kaithal on 5.4.2002 in the name of Ram Dhan.

So Ex-facie such Licence would appear to be a fake one, and the same fact that it was subsequently got renewed would not have the effect of granting any legal sanctity to the same, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in “New India Assurance Co., Shimla  Vs. Kamla & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 2388, 2388 and 2389 of 2001 decided on 27.3.2001”, in which it was observed inter alia –

“If a fake driving licence happened to be renewed by the statutory authorities, would the fakeness of the original document get legally sanctified?  If cannot, would the Insurance Company be liable to pay compensation in respect of a motor accident occurred while the vehicle was driven by a person holding such a sham licence?  These are the main questions involved in these appeals……..”

“…….As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged.  Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry.  No licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine…..”

“……..What was originally a forgery would remain null and void for ever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it.  Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery….”

“…..The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition….”

Needless to mention, a contract of Insurance between the concerned parties is on the principle of “Uberrima fides” i.e. absolute good faith on part of both the contracting sides.  From the Insurance Policy (Annexure A-1), it is seen that the Insurance coverage was applicable in the event of an accident subject to the condition that the vehicle at the relevant time was being driven by “any person including the Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of an accident and is not dis-qualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.”  As has already been seen, the driving licence possessed by Ram Dhan was not actually a lawful one notwithstanding that it was issued by way of renewal by the RTA, Kaithal, on the premise that he was earlier holding a valid driving licence issued from Hyderabad, which was not actually the case.  The Insurance claim was repudiated by the Petitioner/Insurance Company on 30.4.2012 which was almost a full year before the Complainant filed his complaint on 26.4.2013.  It was clearly mentioned in the repudiation letter that “MR. K. RAMCHANDER RAO OF HYDERABAD, INVESTIGATOR, HAS FOUND THAT THE DRIVING LICENCE OF SH. RAM DHAN S/O SH. MEWA SINGH (DL NO. 61164) WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY, HENCE IS FOUND FAKE”.  But, the Complainant kept on asserting that the licence of his Driver Ram Dhan was genuine and, “that Insurance Investigator has no authority to opine that the driving licence is fake in case the record of the same is not available.”  Since the reason for repudiation had been well known to the Complainant almost a year before he approached the District Forum, he could have procured an appropriate evidence from his side to prove that the original licence purportedly issued from Hyderabad was not fake, or at least he could have made out a case that he had in good faith assumed that the licence in question was genuine.  But the Complainant did not adopt either of these two courses and has even failed to appear or contest the present proceedings in spite of having been validly notified several years ago, and also having been given lumpsum costs to enable him to travel and bear his sundry expenses in contesting these proceedings.  We, therefore, have no other option but to accept the contention of the Petitioner/Insurance Company that it was justified in repudiating the Respondent’s claim since the initial licence of his Driver, Ram Dhan, which was subsequently got renewed from the RTA, Kaithal, was not a valid driving licence, in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of “New India Assurance Co., Shimla  Vs. Kamla & Ors.” (supra).

We, consequently, hold that both the Ld. Fora below had acted erroneously in allowing the complaint in favour of the Respondent.  The Revision Petition is therefore allowed after setting aside the original orders of the District Forum as well as the impugned Order passed by the Ld. State Commission.  Parties to bear their own costs.

The Petitioner is at liberty to withdraw any deposits made by him with the District Forum in consequence of the earlier order passed on 23.8.22017.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.