IMPORTANT POINT
Once driving licence found to be fake, renewal cannot take away effect of fake licence.

Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved by impugned order dated 7.11.2008, passed by State Commission, Delhi (for short, ‘State Commission’) has filed present revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’).

2. Brief facts are, that Respondent/Complainant is owner of Truck No.DL-IG-8321 which was insured with petitioner company from 15.1.2000 to 14.1.2001, for Rs.3.15 lacs with unlimited third party property damage cover. It is stated, that above truck met with an accident, when it was going from Sonepat to Daman on National Highway No.8 on 5.10.2000 at Ambamana, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. FIR to this effect was lodged on 5.10.2000 at 11.30 PM. Information of same was duly conveyed to the petitioner also. At the time of said accident, truck was being driven by one Shri Surinder Singh, who had valid driving licence number DLF 21758197, which was duly renewed from 30.3.2000 to 29.3.2003 from Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer, Rajasthan. Therefore, driver was fully authorized to drive the vehicle. The said insured truck was badly damaged. An amount of Rs.1.75 lacs was spent for repairing, for which petitioner is liable to make the entire payment. The claim form was submitted to the petitioner, vide claim number 2000/382 and respondent completed all the formalities. A Surveyor was also appointed, but petitioner has not settled the claim and not made the payment. Therefore, alleging deficiency on the part of petitioner company, respondent filed complaint before District Forum, claiming a sum of Rs.1.75 lacs for loss due to accident alongwith interest @ 24% per annum, from the date of accident till decision of the case.

3. Petitioner in its written statement has stated, that the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was not holding a valid licence to drive the vehicle. The licence originally was issued from Guwahati, Assam. The representative of petitioner visited Regional Transport Office, from where it was issued and an application was moved with the issuing authority who returned the same in original with remarks, that DL No.S-11932/Gwahati/Assam was not issued from their end. Therefore, renewal of licence by Transport Authority, Ajmer, is of no consequence when original licence issued by Transport Authority, Kamrup, is fake. Since, driver of respondent was not competent enough to drive the vehicle at the time of accident, therefore, claim of respondent was rejected, vide letter dated 23.2.01 after due application of mind and considering the terms and conditions of the policy issued in favour of respondent.

4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (for short, ‘District Forum’) allowed the complaint, vide order dated 7.7.2004 and passed following directions;

“We thus direct O.P. to pay the claim amount of Rs.1.75 lacs together with interest @ 9% from 1.1.01 till its realization together with costs of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 30 days failing which the rate of interest will be 12% instead of 9%.

5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which partly allowed the same by maintaining the direction to pay Rs.1,75,000/- and cost of litigation but set aside the rest of order of the District Forum.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, that valid number of renewals of an original fake licence, will not make it a valid driving licence and the same will continue to be a fake driving licence, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamla Devi, (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 342.

8. On the other hand it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent, that at the time of accident driver of vehicle was having a valid driving licence. Both fora below have rightly allowed the complaint. In support, learned counsel has relied upon following judgments;

(i) Jitendra Kumar Vs. Oriental Ins