IMPORTANT POINT
In the event vehicle is driven by a person who does not possess a valid and subsisting licence, insured is not entitled to any reimbursement irrespective of whether he is at fault or not.

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant/respondent being owner of a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. DL 8CJ 8798, got the said vehicle insured with the petitioner Company for a period from 29.03.2004 to 28.03.2005. The vehicle met with an accident at Karnal bypass on 24.06.2004 and sustained several damages. The vehicle was repaired by the workshop and returned to the complainant, who paid a sum of Rs. 1,35,184/- to the workshop, for carrying out the repairs. The complainant/respondent then submitted the claim with the petitioner Company, which was rejected on the ground that the licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence since it had not been issued by licencing authority, Karnal, by which it purported to be issued.

2. Being aggrieved from the denial of the claim, the respondent/complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the same ground on which the claim was earlier rejected by it.

3. The District Forum vide its order dated 11.05.2006, directed the petitioner Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,184/- to the complainant alongwith compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000 and costs of litigation amounting to Rs. 2,000/-.

4. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company approached the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been partly allowed by reducing the principal amount from Rs. 1,35,184/- to Rs. 1,21,416/- while maintaining rest of the order, vide impugned order dated 02.02.2009, the Insurance Company is before us by way of this revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 (3) SCC 297. in support of his contention that since the complainant was not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving licence shown to him by the driver, the claim could not have been denied. The decision in Swaran Singh (supra) was clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a later decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700. holding that the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) would apply only in a case where claim is raised by a third party and not in a case where the claim is raised by the insured himself. In a subsequent decision, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saheb Singh, (2010) 14 SCC 776. it was found that the licence of the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence. The State Commission however allowed the complaint relying upon the decision in Swaran Singh (supra). Allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as under:-

“4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment in Swaran Singh case has been clarified in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut and in view of the latter decision, insured cannot claim compensation for damage to his vehicle or goods where the licence of the driver is fake. He pointed out that the respondent insured had claimed compensation for the damage caused to his own vehicle and not for third party and as such the ratio of Laxmi Narain Dhut case is squarely applicable to the present case.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and are satisfied that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment in Laxmi Narain Dhut case and on that ground the orders passed by the State Commission and National Commission are liable to be set aside.”

6. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj, (2008) 2 SC 338. a mini bus owned by the respondent before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, met with an accident during the subsistence of an insurance policy, issued by the appellant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The claim in respect of the damages sustained by the vehicle was rejected on the ground that the driver of the vehicle