BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 24th day the February, 2006
C.C.No.171/2005
S. Altaf Hussain, S/o. Hussain Miah, Aged 50 years,
R/o. D.No. 11/46, Pattanvadi Street, Banaganapalli (P and M), Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.
2. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Kurnool.
. . . Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on 21.02.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.L. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri K. Muralidhar, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1& 2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This complaint case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a order against of the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.85,000/- towards damages with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for suffered mental agony at the deficiency of service of the opposite party and costs of the case.
2. The complainant alleges that the complainant is the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP21 U 5888 and he insured the said lorry with opposite party No.1 vide policy No.051102/31/03/02206 and it was inforce on the date of accident occurred on the intervening night of 4th and 5th of June 2004 at 1 A.M within a limits of C.K.Palli Police Station of Anantapur District and the said vehicle damaged badly and so matter was reported to insurance company who inturn appointed a surveyor and the later has submitted his report and the complainant has submitted the claim form along with relevant documents and bills claiming amount of Rs.85,000/- towards damages. But the opposite party repudiated the claim on 29-6-2005 on the pretest of no driving licence to the driver of the said insured vehicle at the time its driving when accident occurred. As no genuine doubt arises on the face of renewed driving licence of the driver the repudiation of claim by insurer is improper and as the complainant has taken all due care and caution the complainant cannot found fault with for any faults of driving licence and the repudiation being not justifiable the conduct of the opposite party amounts to the deficiency of service and the opposite parties as insurer are liable to make good of his claim.
3. The opposite parties, who appeared in pursuance of the receipts of the notices of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, filed the written version of opposite party No.2 and it is adopted by opposite party No.1. The written version of the opposite party besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainant’s case justifies its repudiation of the claim of the complainant as the enquiries done by the opposite party with the R.T.O Aurangabad revealed no such driving licence bearing DL No.9738/UG/87 dated 4-12-1987 was issued by R.T.O Aurangabad on the name of the driver whose renewed licence only was produced by the complainant alleging the non availability of its original licence and the said conduct of complainant for not having valid driving licence to his driver and allowing vehicle to be driven at the time of said accident by said driver amounts to violation of the terms of the policy as to valid driving licence to the driver and hence, the repudiation being proper there is no deficiency of service on its part and so demise the cause of action of the complainant and seeks for dismissal of the case with costs.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has relied upon the documentary material record in Ex.A1 and A2 besides to his sworn affidavit, the opposite party side relied upon documentary material record in Ex.B1 to B3 besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out its case against the opposite parties as to any deficiency of service in said repudiation of the claim and there by any of his entitleness to the claim.
6. The Ex.B1 is the policy of insurance, covering vehicle of the complainant which met with accident. The Ex.B1 under the caption of “person or class of persons entitled to drive so as to be cover the risk under the said policy” says the person driving must hold an effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The Ex.A2 is the renewed driving licence issued by licencing authority cum R.T.O, Mahabubnagar to a driver by name Hussain Saheb. K. It takes reference to Aurangabad, Maharastra State as Original Licencing Authority and date of its first issue as 4-12-1987. The said Ex.A2 by said particulars reveals that the licence of the said driver is not original driving licence but a renewed driving licence issued by Licencing Authority and RTA, Mahabubnagar on 7-10-2003. Even though the Ex.B2 letter of Additional Licencing Authority, Mahabubnagar dated 29-12-2004 takes reference as to the driving licence No.9738/AUR/87 dated 4-12-1987 as was issued by Licencing Authority Aurangabad, Maharastra State in favour of K.Hussain Saheb and there on it has noted the change of address of the said driver it does not appear to be of having any merit worthy of consideration in view of the Ex.B3 issued by RTO, Aurangabad on 5-12-2005 that no such licence bearing No.9738/AUR/87 dated 4-12-1987 was issued to Hussain Saheb, the said original licence which has been taken reference in Ex.B2 and which must have been basis for issual of Ex.A2 appears to be a fake one, and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gitendra Kumar V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another reported in 2003 CTJ page 649 (SC) (CP) a fake driving licence, when renewed genuinely, does not acquire a validity of a genuine licence, the Ex.A2 remains as invalid driving licence amounting to the driver having no valid licence at all at the time of accident to the said vehicle for which the complainant is claiming insurance.
7. The Hon’ble National Commission in its decision in United India Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Jayarajendra Kumar Nanda reported in 2002 (2) ALT page 25 (NC) (CPA) holds the rejection of claim by insurance company sustainable when the driver there in possessing a driving licence to drive medium goods vehicle and an Autoriksha, has driven an Ambassador Car a Light Motor Vehicle which met with accident holds the said licence of driver as improper licence and there by the driver as not possessing a valid driving licence as required for covering the risk of insurance, the case of the complainant having a validly renewed licence on the base of fake licence is more worst and on such invalid driving licence the complainant cannot claim any insurance claim as the complainant, by placing a renewed driving licence issued on fake licence is remaining violated the condition of seeing a valid driving licence to the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident.
8. The decision of Hon’ble Orissa State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Cuttock in Reena Rani Behera V/s New India Insurance Company Ltd., and others holding the deficiency of service of insurance company in repudiating the claim in the case where the driver was not holding a validly renewed driving licence, does not appear to be having in a proper application to the facts of the present case as the basis for arriving at such conclusion was in the contingency of the insurance company not challenging the authority of licencing authority who renewed the driving licence on the original licence which was fake and in this case the insurance company as submits the renewal of the driving licence by the licencing authority, Mahabubnagar is not proper.
9. The decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabbalpur in National Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Vishala Bai and Others reported in 2006 ACJ 149 also does not appear to be having any relevancy of its appreciation in the present case as it was held on the failure of the owner producing the driving licence of his driver, holding the owner is not expected to maintain any record in this behalf. But in this case from the replies of the complainant to the first interrogatory of the opposite party is that as the original was said to have been produced and the insurance company retaining its Xerox copy after its due verification returned the said original to the driver, the said circumstances in the above case of not producing the driving licence by the owner and the inference following that are not available in this case.
10. The decision of Hon’ble National Commission in New India Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Kishan Bhai reported in 2005 (2) ALT 19 (NC) (CPA) says the burden on the insurer to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence or fail to exercise reasonable care in entrusting the driving of vehicle to a driver holding a driving licence. The insurer in the present case has enquired with licencing authority, Aurangabad and learnt in authorised manner vide Ex.B3 that such alleged original driving licence is a fake one as was not at all issued by it and any amount of renewal of a fake licence remains to be of any avail as per the decision in 2003 CTJ 649 Supreme Court (C.P) and the insurer appear to have discharged his burden of proving the fake licence, the above said decision i.e. 2005 (2) ALT (19) (NC) (CPA) does not come to the rescue of the complainant.
11. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Lehru and Others reported in 2003 ACJ 611 says that in order to avoid its liability the insurance company has to prove that the driver was not duly licenced with a valid driving licence and as in this case vide Ex.B3 it proved that the driver of the complainant’s vehicle as not having a valid driving licence, the insurer who is here in the opposite party, remains to have proved what is required to avoid the liability.
12. The claim of the complainant is repudiated as the driver of the said vehicle at the time of said occurrence is not having valid driving licence. The licence produced as per the insurance company at the time of the claim was a renewed driving licence. As to the production of original driving licence is concerned while the opposite party side say it was not at all submitted by the claimant, the complainants side in reply to interrogatories allege that the original driving licence was produced and after seeing the said DL the insurance company retaining its Xerox returned the original. While the opposite party side denied it the complainant’s side erroneously in its sworn affidavit says that it has submitted the original DL along with the complaint while in actuality that is enclosed with the complaint is a renewed driving licence, and on the other hand it had taken time during hearing from 7-2-2006 to 16-2-2006 and from there on to 21-2-2006 to produce the original DL and failed to produce any such driving licence and such a failure perhaps with the fear of adverse inferance it may give as submitted by the opposite party side that the said so called original driving licence was a fake one as was found on enquiry by insurance with its concerned relevant authorities as one not issued at all by it.
13. The owner of the vehicle i.e. complainant, who made claim of insurance which was repudiated by the opposite party, expect merely satisfying on the face of Ex A.2 as to the genuineness of the driving licence of the driver, not bothered much of verifying the truth or otherwise there in, does not amount to display on his part of any reasonably due care as he is only the person required to comply with the terms and conditions of policy which covers the risk for claiming insurance. The insured as the person going to avail the benefit of said contract of insurance on attaining contingency of said risk it is he who has to comply strictly in its sincerity the said condition as to valid driving licence of driver of said vehicle at the time of said accident and hence it is not for the insurer and hence, the mere satisfaction of the owner of the vehicle on the face of renewed driving licence without verifying its original on which basis it was renewed especially when the original which was set to be basis for the renewal of said DL is remaining undoubtedly a fake one.
14. The purport of the condition of the policy requiring valid driving licence to the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of said accident to vehicle to favour the claim is to be understood in positive sense as to means the possession of a valid driving licence to the driver of said insured vehicle at the time of said accident which gives rise to the claim. The stress being given to the word “Valid” driving licence it shall mean always a driving licence having validity in its true sense. Hence, it cannot be equated to that licence which the owner mere look at it satisfies without probing behind to it as to ascertainment of validities there in. If the mere personal satisfaction of the owner is sufficient without any obligation on him to verify as to its actual validities with reference to the concerned authorities who can say of them authoritatively, it would not be a fool proof one to detter any mischievous to avail of the fake licence to have wrongful gains of insurance claim. The services of driver being availed by the insured (owner of the vehicle) it shall be within the dominion of said owner of the insured vehicle itself to verify the validity of the driving licence of said driver to have any contingent benefit of said policy. As the role of insurer shall come into play only after the claim of insurance was placed before it and not earlier to that either at the time of said accident or just prior to it which driver was employed for his services the insurer cannot have any opportunity of probing into the aspect of driving licence of said driver. Hence, the owner who allows the driver who is not having a valid driving licence cannot be found as one on account of any faulty conduct of insurer. Especially when the entrustment of insured vehicle by insured to a driver having a valid driving licence is a condition precedent laid on the complainant solely to avail the benefit of insurance and not in a way other way round.
15. The insurer being not bound to honour the claim based on the policy it issued in favour of insured without satisfactory compliance by its insured of the vital terms and conditions governing said policy and that too when it comes to know during its enquiry vide Ex.B3 the said original driving licence of said driver itself was a fake being not at all issued by Aurangabad, Regional Transport Authority.
16. Hence, in the light of the supra stated decision (i.e. 2003 CTJ 649) which is aptly applicable to the said circumstances of this case, there appears any errors or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim on the reason of violation of condition as to valid driving licence to the driver of the vehicle at the time of said accident.
17. Therefore there being no merit and force in the contentions of the complainant the complaint is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us, in the Open Forum, on this the 24th day of February, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses of Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Repudiation letter, dt 29.6.2005.
Ex A.2 Driving licence DLRAPO 22164982003.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex B.1 Policy of Insurance No. 051102/31/03/02206 of the vehicle AP -21U-
5888 issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex B.2 Letter of Mahabub Nagar, RTO, dt 29.12.2004.
Ex B.3. Letter of Asst. Regional Transport Officer, Aurangabad, dt 5.12.2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri.M.L.Srinivsa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri K. Muralidhar, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
