Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Jain, P.M and B.C. Gupta, Member
TIRUPATI TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2093 of 2015 (Against the Order dated 27.03.2015 in Appeal No. 511/2014 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh).
Decided on : 25-08-2015
Sameer Shrivastava and Vijeta Ohri, Advocates, for the Appellant; None for the Respondents, for the Respondent
Validity of insurance claim based on driver's possession of a fake driving license and applicability of previous court decisions on similar cases.
Headnote:
Insurance - Fake Driving Licence - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Om Prakash Jain Civil Appeal No. 6248 of 2009, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Davinder Singh (2007) 8 SCC 698, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was insured with the respondent company and met with an accident. The claim was rejected due to the driver not having a valid driving license. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum and State Commission, leading to the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no ground to interfere in the orders passed by the lower fora and dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: Validity of insurance claim due to driver's fake driving license, applicability of previous court decisions on similar cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the dismissal of the complaint based on the driver's possession of a fake driving license, in line with previous court decisions on similar cases.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as devoid of any merits.
ORDER
V.K. Jain, (P.M) - The complainant/petitioner, owner of vehicle bearing registration no. CG-04-JB-9380 got the said vehicle insured with respondent company for the period from 02.06.2011 to 01.06.2012. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 04.08.2011. The intimation having been given to the insurance company, a surveyor was appointed to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The complainant/petitioner submitted a repair bill to the tune of Rs. 4,45,939/-. The claim however, was rejected by the insurance company on the ground that Baburao, who was driving the vehicle at the time it met with an accident, did not have a valid or effective driving licence. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company primarily on the ground that the driving licence possessed by Baburao was a fake document. The said driving licence bearing no. B/8952/Durg was sent for verification. The RTO at Durg informed that the said licence had been issued in lieu of an old licence bearing no. B/22506/RPR issued by RTO, Raipur. On verification being made from RTO, Raipur, it came to be known that no such driving licence was issued by them.
3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 30.06.2014, dismissed the complaint.
4. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant/petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.03.2015, the complainant/petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.
5. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted as under:
" 24. In the background of the statutory provisions, one thing is crystal clear i.e. the statute is beneficial one qua the third party. But that benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. The logic of fake licence has to be considered differently in respect of the third party and in respect of own damage claims.
36. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to own damage cases. The effect of fake licence has to be considered in the light of what has been stated by this Court in New India Assurance Co. V. Kamla. Once the licence is a fake one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence. It was observed in Kamla case as follows:
(SCC p. 347, para 12)
12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to 'renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry'. No licencing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine".
37. As noted above, the conceptual difference between third-party right and own damage cases has to be kept in view. Initially, the burden is on the insurer to prove that the licence was a fake one. Once it is established the natural consequences have to flow.
38. In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge:
1. The decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to cases other than third-party risks.
2. Where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality.
3. In case of third-party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount, and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured.
4. The concept of purposive interpreta
