1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 27.01.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 301 of 2014 in which order dated 12.06.2014 of Sirohi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no.  104 of 2013 of was challenged.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant ) was Respondent in the said FA No. 301 of 29014 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District  Forum in CC No. 104 of 2013.

3.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on  05.07.2023. Both the parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 16.02.2024.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that Complainant took the insurance of registered truck number R 24 GA 1939 from the authorized agent of the OP Mr. Bhagwan Singh Charan at Sirohi on 26.03.2012 and got a cover note for the period 28.03.2012 to 27.03.2013.  On 16.10.2012,  the driver of the vehicle Mr. Karan Singh was returning from Bharuch ( Gujarat) loaded with goods, when an accident occurred at Sarhad Mauja Chiloda ( Gujarat), in which vehicle was badly damaged.  Information about accident was given to the OP, on which claim of the Complainant was registered.  The spot survey was done by the authorized Surveyor of OP M/s Jar Surveyor and Loss Assessor and final survey was done by Mr. Sampatraj Lunia.  The vehicle was handed over to Shree Aruna Motors, RIICO Industrial Area, Sirohi for repairs where total cost of parts and labour came to Rs.4,59,177/-.  The said amount was not paid by the Insurance Company and claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license at the time of accident. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 12.06.2014 allowed the CC. Being aggrieved, the OP preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 27.01.2023 dismissed the Appeal of the OP.  Hence, the OP is before this Commission now in the present RP.

5.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 27.01.2023 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. State Commission ignored the law which has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Apex Court held that effect of invalid driving license for payment of compensation for third party claim is entirely different from own damage claim.  Reliance is placed on the findings of this Commission in Vinod Sharma Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Manu/CF/0903/2017), findings of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj -  2008 ( 2) SCC 388 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut -  2007 ( 3) SCC 297. 

2. The State Commission ignored the settled law that initially the burden is on the insurer to prove that the license was fake and once the insurer is successful to prove the same then the natural consequences will follow.  The Petitioner succeeded to prove that driving license of the driver was forged and fabricated and was never issued by RTO but State Commission failed to appreciate the said fact.

3. The respondent had breached the terms and conditions of the policy and the terms of the Insurance policy must be strictly construed as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal- Civil Appeal No. 6277 of 2004.

4. The State Commission had granted a relief more than what is covered by the Insurance Policy. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inVikram Greentech ( I) Ltd.and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  ( 2009) 5 SCC 599.

6.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

​

6.2     Learned counsel for the Respondent argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.- (2020) 4 SCC 49 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Ors. -  2003 3 SCC 338 held that insurance company cannot avoid liability only on the ground that person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not  holding a valid driving license.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted that willful breach of conditions of the policy is to be established and in this regard, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004 ) 3 SCC 297.  Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. – 2022 Livelaw (SC) 646

7.       The main contention of the petitioner Insurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle Karan Singh was not having a valid license at the time of accident, which has been proved through a report received from the Licensing Authority Jhansi.  Hence, this being a fundamental breach of the policy, the complainant is  not entitled to claim.

8.       Respondent on the other hand had contended that at the time of engaging the said Karan  Singh as driver, he checked  his license and prima facie found it to be valid and engaged him.  It is to be noted that copy of the driving license is not on record and complainant admits that no copy was obtained by him while engaging Karan Singh as driver. Form-6 which was submitted by the complainant himself to the insurance company is on record, which contains driving license number, based on which inquiry was conducted by the insurance company with Licensing Authority Jhansi. 

9.       In support of their contention, both sides have relied on various judgments, in particular, the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 of 2022 decided on 26.07.2022, in which it is mentioned that owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver.  Therefore, once owner is satisfied that driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver.  The Petitioner on the other hand contends that this judgment being of July 2022 will have no applicability as the decision of the District Forum / State Commission in question was delivered  before the date of this judgment.

10.     Counsel for the Petitioner contends that principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 have been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj, Civil Appeal No. 648 of 2008 decided on 24.01.2008

11.     We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  Surveyor has estimated the loss of Rs.2,98,221/-. District Forum observing that insurance company has produced a photocopy of the report issued by the licensing authority Jhansi, as per which the said license was not issued in 2008, but insurance company has not produced the original report, and the affidavit of the person who obtained this report.  Hence, based on photocopy, it cannot be accepted that the said license of driver Karan Singh is fake.  Hence, the Insurance Company has been unsuccessful in discharging its burden of proving that the license is fake.  District Forum, considering that  Complainant has not raised any objection to the repair of  Surveyor, directed OP to pay Rs.2,98,221/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. date of complaint, alongwith litigation cost of Rs.2000/-. State Commission, after considering the rival contentions of the parties and the case laws relied upon by them, observed that it is not practical for any vehicle owner to verify the legality of driving license of the driver before handing over the vehicle to driver.  Accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the OP-Insurance Company.

12.     In the present case, there are concurrent findings of both the fora below against the OP-Insurance Company. As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

13.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh ( supra ), observed that the owner has no means to verify the genuineness of the driving license produced before him, provided the owner finds the driver is competent to drive the vehicle…… having appointed driver after taking the test, the owner was not expected to make enquiries from the licensing authority as to whether license issued to him is valid or not.

14.    In Nirmala Kothari ( supra ), Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the liability of the Insurance Company when the driver of the offending vehicle possessed an invalid / fake driving license and held :

“10.         While the insurer can certainly take the defence that the licence of the driver of the car at the time of accident was invalid/fake however the onus of proving that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness of the licence or was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance lies on the insurer.

                   x x x x

12.       While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the Insurance Company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the Insurance Company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable.

15.    In Rishi Pal Singh ( supra ), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :

“10.    The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver.  Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver.”

16.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties,  we are of the considered view that State Commission has given a well-reasoned order, there is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission.  We find no reason to interfere with the order of State Commission, hence the same is upheld.  Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.

17.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.