(S.B. Sinha, J.) - Leave granted.

2.Whether renewal of a licence granted to drive motor vehicle which was originally found to be forged would lead to any liability on the part of the insurance company is the core question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 2908 of 2006.

3.Respondent is the owner of the vehicle bearing No. HR-37A-5521. He got the said vehicle insured on 10.11.2003 for one year, i.e., upto 9.11.2004, it met with an accident on 20.4.2004 with a truck. The said vehicle was being driven by one Kulbir Singh. Upon investigation made in this behalf, it was found that the licence bearing No. 6604/R-91-92 held by Kulbir Singh, was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Solan.

4.However, a complaint petition was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum complaining deficiency in service for not paying the amount of damages which was covered by the insurance policy, which the appellant was illegally bound to pay. The said complaint petition was allowed awarding a sum of Rs. 1,23,412/- towards damages, as also a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards other heads, besides interest at the rate of 9% per annum, holding :

“8. A plea has been taken by the opposite parties that Kulbir Singh, driver was not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of driving the vehicle. However, when Mr.Rajesh Shori inspected the driving licence, he found that the driving licence had been issued by the DTO, Hoshiarpur on 23.11.1998. The original driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Solan in 1991-92. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties stated that there is no evidence on the file to the effect that the original driving licence had been issued by the Licensing Authority at Solan (H.P.), as mentioned in the report Ex. R-10. It has been clearly stated by the complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-1 that, when he employed the driver Kulbir Singh, he was possessing a valid driving licence issued by the Licencing Authority, Hoshiarpur. He also verifies this driving licence issued by Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur and also took his driving test and found that he was an efficient driver. There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the opposite parties and hence we hold that the driver Kulbir Singh was possessing a valid driving licence when the accident took place and hence the opposite parties illegally repudiated the claim of the complianant. As the opposite parties failed to make payment of compensation and, therefore, it is a case of deficiency in service.

5.An appeal preferred there against was also dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. A revision application filed before the National Commission met with the same result.

6.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia would submit :

(i) that a fake licence cannot be renewed and that too by an Authority which did not originally grant the same;

(ii) indisputably, the complainant was the owner of the vehicle in question;

(iii) it was comprehensibly insured;

(iv) the vehicle, however, was being driven by Kulbir Singh who did not have an effective driving licence and in that view of the matter, the respondent was not entitled to grant of any amount by way of compensation or otherwise.

7.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that :

(i) in terms of the insurance policy the owner was required to take only reasonable care to ascertain as to whether the driver had been possessing a valid licence or not;

(ii) it was not possible for him to ascertain from the original Licensing Authority as to whether any licence had been issued by it or not;

(iii) the duty of the owner is merely to take reasonable care in the matter as it is not expected that he would make a detailed e