New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Ajay Kumar

V.K. Jain, J

The complainant/respondent owned a vehicle which he had got insured with the petitioner. The said vehicle having met with an accident on 15.06.2011, while being driven by Devinder Singh, driver of the complainant, a claim was lodged with the petitioner for re-imbursement in terms of the insurance policy. The claim having not been paid, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint being CC No.03 of 2014 presented on 30.12.2013. The complaint was resisted by the insurer on the ground that the driver Devinder Singh was not holding a valid and effective Driving License at the time the vehicle met with an accident. It was submitted in the reply filed by the insurer that the complainant had provided a copy of the Driving License No. 32758/P purporting to be issued by the Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur to Devinder Singh on 08.01.2002. On verification being made by the surveyor, it transpired that no such Driving License had been issued by the Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur. Verbally, the complainant then took the stand that the license had been issued by the District Transport Officer, Patiala. On verification from District Transport Officer, Patiala, it transpired that even that had not issued the Driving License, which the complainant had produced before the insurer.

In his reply, the complainant took the stand that Driving License No.32758/P and 13040 were not handed over by him to the insurer and that Devinder Singh was holding Driving License No. 39882/PK/Prof/09 issued on 16.11.2009 by District Transport Officer, Phek, Nagaland. The District Forum, while dismissing the Consumer Complaint, directed the insurer to get the genuineness of Driving License No. 39882/PK/Prof/09 verified and re-consider the claim in case it was verified. The complaint was given liberty to approach the District Forum again.

The insurer having again not paid the claim, the complainant/respondent filed a fresh Consumer Complaint before the concerned District Forum. The second complaint was also resisted by the insurer. The District Forum, vide its order dated 26.07.2016, dismissed the second complaint as well.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the insurer is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum on 03.01.2015 in the first Consumer Complaint filed by the respondent would show that in the claim form dated 19.06.2011, filled and signed by him, the complainant had stated that the vehicle was being driven by Devinder Singh at the time it met with an accident and that he was holding Driving License No.32758/P issued by District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur. It was stated that the said license was having expiry date of 07.01.2013.

A perusal of the verification made by the surveyor would show that the above referred Driving License had not been issued by District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur. The Driving License relied upon by the complainant in the claim form itself therefore, was a forged document. The complainant thus, tried to obtain re-imbursement from the insurer on the basis of a forged document. He submitted the Driving License purporting to be issued from Nagaland only after the Driving License purporting to be issued from Hoshiarpur was found to be a fake and forged document.

The question as to whether a person seeking to obtain a claim on the basis of a forged Driving License is entitled to any relief from a Consumer Forum came to be considered by this Commission in RP No.1000 of 2018 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Venus Industries decided on 13.02.2019. The following was the view taken by this Commission in M/s Venus Industries (supra):

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the complainant had produced a driving license of the driver Anil Kumar purporting to be issued from Muzaffarnagar valid for the period from 09.01.1998 to 08.01.2001 which was found to be a forged document. Thereafter, he submitted another driving license issued from Allahabad and purporting to be valid for the period from 28.08.1998 to 27.08.2001.

I have perused the driving license purporting to be issued to Anil Kumar from Muzaffarnagar. The said driving license bearing no.A-1517/MUZ/1989 purports to have been issued on 13.07.1989 and renewed on 09.01.1998. The renewal was till 08.01.2001. A perusal of the information supplied by the concerned RTO through Right to Information Act would show that no such driving license had been issued by RTO at Muzaffarnagar. It is therefore, evident that a forged driving license in the name of Anil Kumar was produced by the complainant in order to obtain an insurance claim from the petitioner.

When the complainant realized that the driving license submitted by it to the petitioner had been found to be forged document, another driving license, this time purporting to be issued by the Licensing Authority at Allahabad was produced. The license purporting to be issued by the Licensing Authority at Allahabad was filed by the complainant directly before the District Forum and was not produced before the insurer or the surveyor. The petitioner has not been able to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the said driving license. However, the fact remains that the initial driving license, which the complainant had produced for the purpose of obtaining a claim from the insurer, was found to be a forged document. Thus, the respondent/complainant tried to obtain a claim on the basis of forged document which amounts to trying to defraud the insurer or trying to obtain a claim by use and adoption of fraudulent means. The complaint was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

A person who comes to a Court or a Tribunal with tainted hands and tries to obtain a claim on the basis of a forged document is not entitled to any relief and the claim is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone without even examining the same on merits. Therefore, the State Commission, in my view, was not justified in allowing the claim. The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.

In the present case also, since the complainant/respondent tried to obtain a claim on the basis of a forged document thereby attempting to defraud the insurer, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone even if it was a genuine Driving License.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the endorsement permitting the holder to drive an MMV or an HMV was made for the first time on 25.07.2011 whereas the vehicle met with an accident on 15.06.2011 which clearly shows that the driver did not possess a valid Driving License permitting him to drive an MMV or HMV on the date the vehicle met with an accident. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was an MMV. Therefore, even as per the Driving License, purporting to be issued from Nagaland, he was not permitted to drive an MMV on the date the vehicle met with an accident. That seems to be the reason why a forged Driving License purporting to be issued from Hoshiarpur was submitted.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The complaint is consequently, dismissed with no order as to costs.