IMPORTANT POINT
Onus is on Insurance Company to produce credible evidence to conclusively prove that original licence was fake

Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member—The present revision petition has been filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.1271/01. Rajesh Ohri who was the original complainant before the District Forum is the Respondent herein.

2. Respondent in his complaint before the District Forum has contended that he is the owner of a Truck bearing registration No. PB-07-E-7110 which was got comprehensively insured from the Petitioner from 06.10.1998 to 05.10.1999 for Rs.6 lakhs. The Truck met with an accident and was badly damaged on 27.04.1999 in the area of Village Kunka, PS Amer, District Jaipur while it was being driven by one Sucha Singh. An intimation about this was conveyed inter alia to the Petitioner/Insurance Company. Necessary documents etc. were also provided so that the insurance claim could be settled. While the Surveyor appointed for the purpose after survey assessed the loss at Rs.89,322.76p, the claim of the Respondent was repudiated on the grounds that the driving licence of Sucha Singh was fake. Respondent challenged this repudiation and stated that the driver had a valid driving licence and this was subsequently renewed from the Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur. This was confirmed from the District Transport Authority (DTA), Hoshiarpur. Further, the Respondent before employing the driver took his “driving test” to satisfy himself that he was hiring a proficient driver. Keeping in view these facts, the claim was wrongly repudiated. Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that Petitioner be directed to pay him Rs.4 lakhs as compensation for the damage to the truck, Rs. 50,000/- for harassment along with interest @ 18% from the date of accident till realization with costs.

3. Petitioner while admitting that the Truck was insured with it and that following the accident the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 86,322.76p has stated that after verification it was found that the driver Sucha Singh was having a fake/forged licence and, therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated.

4. The District Forum after examining the evidence and documents filed by both parties allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay the Respondent, Rs. 86,322.76p with interest @ 12% from 01.10.1999 as well as Rs.500/- by way of costs within one month. The operative part of the order of the District Forum reads as follows:

“In the instant case, truck driver Such Singh was having a driving licence at the time of accident which was renewed by the District Transport Authority, Hoshiarpur as the Licensing Authority admits that it renewed the driving licence of Sucha Singh from 14.01.1999 to 13.01.2002, whereas, the accident took place on 27.04.99. How, in these circumstances, can it be said that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence as he is holding a licence which was renewed by the competent licencing authority.

Learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to National Insurance Co. Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2001(2) Recent Civil Report, Page 248 (P&R). In the above citation, it was observed that the onus is very heavy on the insurance company to show that he driver had no valid driving licence or the owner committed deliberate breach of conditions of the policy. It was further observed that it cannot be presumed that the owner handed over the vehicle to a person having no valid licence fully knowing the fact. He can also not be expected to first verify the validity of the licence from the Licensing Authority.

In the instant case, firstly the insurance company was to establish through cogent and convincing evidence that the driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident.

This driving licence has been renewed from 16.01.1996 to 15.01.1999 and from 14.01.1999 to 13.01.2002. As such, it can s