The validity of the driver's driving licence in relation to an insurance claim is determined by whether it complies with the requirements mandated by the insurance policy, and the authenticity of the licence is crucial in establishing its validity.

Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Kurukshetra dismissing the complaint preferred by the appellant.

2. The appellant is the owner of the truck No. HRQ-9125, which was fully insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. During the currency of the said insurance, the truck met with an accident on the 24th of March, 1991 and at that time it was being driven by Naib Singh, driver. Invariably, the appellants lodged a claim and damage to the truck was got assessed by a surveyor deputed by the respondent to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. However, the respondent later repudiated the claim on the ground that Naib Singh, the driver of the truck did not hold a valid .driving licence at the time of accident. Aggrieved, thereby the complaint was preferred.

3. The respondents resolutely defended the complaint and took up the primal pleas that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident did not have availed driving licence and this being contrary to the insurance policy, the claim was rightly rejected.

4. The appellant produced evidence to the effect that Naib Singh, driver had been issued a licence by the licensing authority at Cuttack and subsequently the said licence was renewed at Kurukshetra on the 17th of February, 1989 till 17th of February, 1992. Naib Singh, driver also took up the plea that his licence was not a forged one. However, in rebuttal Shri S.K. Aggarwa1, the Branch Manager of the respondent Insurance Company appeared as a witness and produced on record documents Ex O-1 to O-5 and the insurance policy as O-6. The authenticity of the said documents was not in any way challenged on behalf of the appellant.

5. The District Forum on an appraisal of the evidence and the material before it, came to the firm conclusion that the purported driving licence of Naib Singh was a fake and forged one from its very inception and its subsequent renewal on the basis of a self-serving affidavit by the driver could not clothe it with validity. Consequently, it was held that the rejection of the claim by the respondent was justified.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has primarily rested himself on the alleged renewal of the licence at Kurukshetra and the testimony of Naib Singh, Driver to the effect that his licence was not a forged one. It was submitted that the appellant had no material to go behind the driving licence set up by Nirmal Singh, which bore the seal of renewal by the licensing authority, Kurukshetra.

7. We arc afraid that there is little or no merit in the aforesaid submission. It is common ground that the insurance policy Ex. O-6 mandates that the driver of the vehicle must have a valid and effective driving licence. As already noticed, the documentary evidence adduced by the respondent Company was not at all put in challenge on behalf of the appellant. Ex. O-4 and the supporting documents including the testimony of Shri S.K. Aggarwal would leave no manner of doubt that according to the report of the office of the licensing authority, Cuttack (wherefrom admittedly the driving licence was secured originally) no driving licence bearing No. N/24750 of 1986 bad been issued by the said authority as per their record and consequently the driving licence purporting to be bear such number and dated the 8th of October, 1986 was a fake and forged one. Now once that is so, it is elementary that from the very inception, Naib Singh, driver was not issued any valid driving licence at all. Learned Counsel for the appellant's reliance on the subsequent renewal by the licencing authority at Kurukshetra is obviously vain. It is somewhat elementary that an originally fake and forged driving licence cannot become a valid one by its purported renewal by another licencing authority on the basis of the statements of the holder of such a forged licence. The primal and the solitary argument of the learned Counsel must, therefore, fail and is rejected.

8. For the foregoing reasons