In case of fraud, the fraudulent party is not entitled to any claim.

Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal by the complainant against the order dated 12.9.2001 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun whereby the claim of the complainant was dismissed.

2. The complainant has got a bus. It was insured. During the insurance period, it met with an accident. He filed claim petition with the Insurance Company which was repudiated. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. After scanning the evidence of the parties, the learned Forum held that the driver was not having a proper driving licence on the date of accident. He was having licence only to drive light goods vehicle, whereas, the bus which met with accident was a heavy private vehicle. The accident took place on 20.6.1994. The copy of the driving licence has been filed and the only dispute is whether the driver was having a valid driving licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle on the date of accident. The complainant has filed copy of the driving licence of the driver Mahipal Singh which is said to have been endorsed for driving H.P.V. w.e.f. 17.6.1992. As said above, the accident took place on 20.6.1994. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that on the date of accident, the driver was having a valid licence. But according to the opposite party this endorsement is a forged one and has been obtained in collusion with the office of ARTO after the accident to gain money out of this accident.

3. If there is a fraud, necessarily a fraudulent party is not entitled to any claim, at least in the discretion of the Redressal Authority.

4. On facts the learned Forum has given a finding that it was a forged entry on the driving licence after this accident. Necessarily, on a bare perusal of the licence, it will reveal that on the date of accident, this licence was for driving H.P.V., but the Forum found that it was fabricated later on. The learned Forum held that in his affidavit dated 20.11.1994, the driver did not say even a single word that he was having any driving licence for H.P.V. A copy of the driving licence was also obtained by the Insurance Company after this accident and there was no such endorsement. The accident took place in 1994 and had this endorsement been from 1992, itself, it should have definitely been shown in the copy issued to the Insurance Company as well. Not only this, there was a case in the Motor Accident Tribunal. The finding there may or may not be a res judicata, but, at least there is a definite finding that the copy of the driving licence was filed in these proceedings and in that copy also, there was no endorsement for driving Heavy Passenger Vehicle. Apparently, therefore, it is clear that there was a fraud in the proceedings to get this endorsement after accident. It was argued by the learned Attorney for the complainant Shri H.L. Khanna that this was the duty of the District Forum as well as this Commission to give a finding who has committed this fraud. The proceedings before the District Forum and the State Commission are summary proceedings and if a fraud is apparently there, it shall play its mischief. The District Forum or say this Commission has got no spare time to enter into these controversies to go off the track and to make a regular inquiry, then to give a finding and then to file a complaint or FIR in the case. If the complainant is able to prove his case, he will get relief, otherwise, his complaint shall be dismissed. He should go either to the Criminal Court or Civil Court to get his all matters decided on merits by a regular trial, by a regular inquiry and elaborate finding on these points. It is apparent in this case that the fraud, if any, could have been originated by the consumer because it is he, who was to get the relief and handsome amount, if it is proved that the driver has got a valid driving licence.

On facts, the judgment of the learned Forum is totally correct. But, however, the complainant is free to approach the Civil Court to