Rajinder Singh vs Oreintal Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member

Learned counsel for the revisionist complainant and the respondent insurance co. made their respective arguments, de novo, in their totality.

The entire material on record was perused.

The dispute relates to repudiation of an accident claim.

The short point involved is that the State Commission, vide its impugned Order dated 19.11.2012, allowed the appeal of the insurance co. and dismissed the complaint, inter alia observing that the driver, one Mr. Rishi Pal, was holding two driving licences, which was against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

Extracts from the State Commission's impugned Order are reproduced below for ready appreciation:

- - - The observation of the Hon'ble National Commission in JAI PARKASH GOYAL's case (Supra) is as under:-

"4. Before the State Commission it was urged by the counsel for the complainant that possessing of two driving licences by a driver may be an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act, but the same is not sufficient to deny the claim of the complainant. when holding of two licences is prohibited under the law and is an offence, we fail to understand as to how and why the same cannot be pressed into service for rejecting the claim since holding of two licences at the same time would not only be in contravention of Rule 6 would be that the second driving licence obtained by a person would be invalid for all practical purposes as the same was obtained in contravention of Provision 6 of the said Act. Any other interpretation would be the violation of the provision of the said Act. Besides this, it was also found that the tanker in question was overloaded in breach of policy conditions which contributed to the accident."

This case is fully covered by JAI PARKASH GOYAL's case (Supra). It has come on the record that Rishi Pal-driver, was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was holding two driving licences, which is against the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore the opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit to the complainant. Hence, the order of the District Forum cannot sustain.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.- - -

From the material available on file, and inter alia specifically from the copies of the surveyor's report dated 15.03.2008, the verification report dated 05.07.2008 from the R.T.A. of Nalabari in Assam and the surveyor's letter dated 16.07.2008, as also from the facts of the case recorded in the District Forum's Order dated 27.02.2012 and in the State Commission's Order dated 19.11.2012, it is well evinced that it was first claimed that the driver, the said one Mr. Rishi Pal, had a driving licence from the R.T.A. of Nalabari in Assam, which, but, on verification, was found to be fake. The said licence, though, was subsequently renewed from the L.A. of Jind in Haryana. Another licence, from the D.T.O. of Agra in U.P., was also adduced before the forum of original jurisdiction i.e. the District Forum. As such, at the time of the accident the driver ostensibly had two licences.

Though a decision of the insurance ombudsman is not binding on consumer protection fora, which independently adjudge 'deficiency in service' and / or 'unfair trade practice' under the provision of the Act 1986, in the present case it is significant and material that the insurance ombudsman had dismissed the claim on 02.06.2009 holding that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, thereafter which the complainant filed his complaint before the District Forum on 16.08.2010.

The District Forum allowed the complaint. However the State Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that "It has come on the record that Rishi Pal driver, was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was holding two driving licences, which is against the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore the opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit to the complainant.".

Looking at it another way, it is admitted, as also borne from the record, that it was first and foremost intimated to the insurance co. that the driver was having a driving licence ostensibly issued by the R.T.A. of Nalabari in Assam. The said licence, on verification, was found to be fake. It was subsequently renewed from Jind in Haryana. Renewal of a fake licence does not make it valid, it remains what it was, that is, a fake licence, non est. This ab initio fraud and malafide are in themselves sufficient to vitiate the claim.

The insurance co., thus, cannot be faulted.

The revision petition is dismissed.

'Dasti', in addition.