Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President and B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
GOPAL PATHAK - Respondent
First Appeal No. 941 of 2010
Decided on : 25-07-2011
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent
Violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically the provisions of Section 3 and Section 6, renders the claimant not entitled to compensation for vehicle damage.
Headnote:
Insurance - Insurable Benefits - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 3, Section 6 - The court discussed the necessity for a driving license under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the restriction on holding multiple driving licenses under Section 6. The court emphasized that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless holding an effective driving license and that holding two driving licenses simultaneously is prohibited. The court referred to previous cases to support its decision and highlighted that the violation of these provisions renders the claimant not entitled to compensation for vehicle damage.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle was damaged in an accident, and the insurance claim was repudiated due to the driver's fake driving license. The complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum, which ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the opposite parties to pay compensation and litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant's claim for compensation was not sustainable as the driver held two driving licenses, one of which was fake, violating the terms of the Insurance Policy.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the driving licenses held by the driver and the entitlement of the complainant to compensation for the vehicle damage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically Section 3 and Section 6, rendered the complainant not entitled to compensation for the damage to the insured vehicle.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. The court ruled that the complainant was not entitled to any compensation for the damage to the vehicle.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.6.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panipat in complaint No. 161/2009, which relates to the insurable benefits in respect of insured vehicle of the complainant (respondent herein) which damaged in an accident during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy.
2. Undisputed facts of the present case are that Maruti Omni vehicle bearing registration No. HR-67-4606 of the respondent-complainant, insured with the opposite parties, damaged in an accident on the intervening night of 12/13.4.2008. Complainant submitted claim along with documents with respect to the damage of his vehicle. On verification the driving licence bearing No. 50658/P of the driver Gopal Dutt Sharma issued by Licensing Authority, Sonepat, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was found fake as per the report obtained by Shri Parkash, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, from Licensing Authority, Sonepat. Accordingly, complainant's claim was repudiated vide letter dated 16.2.2009. Thereafter, complainant produced the second driving licence bearing No. 13027/MTR/03 issued in the name of Gopal Dutt Sharma, allegedly issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura but the same could not be verified as the record of the office of Licensing Authority, Mathura, pertaining to the driving licence of Gopal Dutt Sharma had already been sealed by a Court. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing the instant complaint. The complaint on being contested by the opposite parties on the grounds stated above, was accepted by the District Forum by issuing direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation after assessing the loss of the complainant, within a period of 30 days failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till realization. Cost of litigation was awarded at Rs. 2,200.
3. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
5. It is argued by Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite parties that the first driving license produced by the complainant along with his claim papers allegedly issued by Licensing Authority, Sonepat, on verification was found fake. In support of his arguments Mr. Suri learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the report endorsed on the application dated 5.11.2008 moved by Mr. Parkash, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Annexure A-5 which clearly reflect that the DL No. 50658/P was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Sonepat and thus it was a fake driving licence.
6. On the other hand Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the complainant had produced the second driving licence bearing No. 13027/MTR/03 issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura, which was issued on 19.9.2003 initially for Light Motor Vehicle but later on it was got renewed for HTV/HPV on 31.12.2004 and the same was valid upto 30.12.2010. Thus, the second driving licence issued by the Licensing Authority, Mathura was a genuine driving licence but the opposite patrties failed to get it verified and for that reason and adverse inference has to be taken against the opposite parties.
7. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the District Forum in the impugned order, we subscribe to the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties. Our observation in this regard are as under:
Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the necessity for driving licence which is reproduced below:
"(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor c
