IMPORTANT POINT
Any fake licence is non-est in eyes of law.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member— Petitioner has filed this revision petition against order dated 08.05.2009, passed by H. P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (for short as “State Commission”).Vide impugned order, appeal of respondent-Insurance Company was allowed.

2. Along with present revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 11months and 23 days has also been filed.

3. Brief facts of this case are that deceased-complainant (Sh. Salig Ram) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘Act’) against respondent/ opposite party. In the complaint, it was alleged that he is owner of L & T/JCB Machine and on 20.11.2004 at about 12.00 noon, the vehicle met with accident and fell down about 300 meters deep in Khad and was totally damaged. At the time of accident, driver Dharam Singh was having valid driving licence. The machine was insured with respondent for the sum of Rs. 10 lac. Respondent’s Surveyor submitted his report and assessed the total loss. Complainant applied to the respondent to compensate him for the loss by filing of relevant documents, but respondent has been delaying the matter without any reason. It is further alleged that despite repeated requests, verbal as well as written notice dated 06.03.2006, respondent is not paying the compensation. Finally, respondent refused to make the payment, vide letter dated 05.05.2006.

4. Respondent contested the complaint and stated that the claim lodged by the complainant was got investigated and assessed and when the same was not found to be genuine claim, then the same was repudiated and decision in this regard, was duly communicated to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

5. It is also alleged that the vehicle was being driven by a person, who was not holding any valid and effective driving licence to drive the category of vehicle insured and thus, respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured for the loss suffered by him due to accident. The licence of driver is fake one. Respondent hired the service of Surveyor Sh. Arunesh Gautam and Sh. Rajnish K. Dhiman to verify about the genuineness of driving licence, which was originally shown to have been issued by RLA Shimla and RLA Shimla, vide reports dated 12.02.2005 and 13.06.2005, reported that driving licence No. 376/SML/88 has not been issued in favour of Sh. Dharam Chand son of Sh. Gulab Ram, as per office record. Further, the driving licence is shown to have been renewed by RLA Hamirpur. Since, the driving licence of Sh. Dharam Chand is fake one and there cannot be renewal of nonset.

6. District Forum vide order dated 12.06.2008, allowed the complaint and passed the following order;

“ The opposite party is ordered and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,95,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 24.08.2006 till realization besides cost of litigation, which we assess at Rs. 2,000/-. The complaint stands allowed, accordingly”.

7. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

8. Taking up application for condonation of delay first, relevant averments made in it, reads as under;

“(a) The original complainant and respondent before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shri Salig Ram, the sole bread earner of the family unfortunately expired on 26.06.2008 leaving behind a widow, Smt. Saneh Lata( petitioner No. 2 herein ) and an eighteen year old son (petitioner No. 1 herein). Upon the death of Shri Salig Ram, the problems of the petitioner herein increased manifold since the petitioners were constrained to look after the legal issues arising in the captioned mater as well as the work related issues, which were solely handed by Sh. Salig Ram prior to his unfortunate demise.

(b) The petitioners herein with enormous