PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 467/2002 and 468/2002, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The Dhana Khurd Coop. Transport Society Ltd., vide which the two appeals filed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar in complaint No. 856 and 859 of 1996 were ordered to be dismissed.  The District Forum had allowed the two complaints and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,650/- and 16,980/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date after three months of lodging of claims by the complainant till realization.  The District Forum had also awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in each case on account of mental agony and harassment and a cost of Rs. 1,000/- in each case.  The State Commission dismissed the appeals but stated that the interest of 18% awarded by the District Forum shall take care of the compensation for harassment and mental agony and hence the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was disallowed.  It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

2.     Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent Society was registered owner of Bus No. HR-39-0880, which was insured with the petitioner insurance company vide policy No. 420304/6308831/94 valid from 20.06.1994 to 19.06.1995.  The said bus met with an accident on 04.02.1995 and a criminal case was registered at Police Station, Sampla, vide FIR No. 21 dated 04.02.1995.  A claim was lodged with the petitioner and accordingly, a surveyor was appointed to submit his report regarding damage.  In the meanwhile, the said bus again met with an accident on 16.05.1995 and FIR No. 122 dated 16.05.1995 was registered in the Police Station, Sadar Hisar.  A second claim was filed by the respondent Society regarding this accident as well.  The petitioner / opposite party rejected both the claims vide letter dated 05.8.1996 on the ground that the driving license of driver Sant Lal son of Phool Singh stood expired on 26.01.1995, and it was later renewed from 26.09.1995 to 25.09.1998.  As such, at the time of accident on both the occasions, the driver was not having effective and valid driving licence.  The case of the complainant is that the driver should be presumed to hold driving licence unless he is disqualified from driving the vehicle by the Licensing Authority.  The complainants filed complaint with the District Forum which allowed both the complaints by common order dated 23.01.2002 and awarded compensation as stated in the preceding paragraph.  Two separate appeals filed against the order of the District Forum were dismissed by the State Commission, Chandigarh.  It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

3.     The respondent in the case did not appear even after service of the notice and it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

4.     There is a delay of 42 days in filing the present petition, but the application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner in which it has been stated that on scrutiny of the file folder, the panel Advocate had discovered that the order of the District Forum was not on record.  The delay occurred because certain time was spent in procuring copy of the said order.  The delay should be condoned in the interest of justice; otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss.

5.     The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it was clear from record that at the time of both the accidents, the driver of the vehicle did not have valid driving license.  The petitioner was therefore, well within his rights to repudiate the claim of the respondent for own damage.  The learned counsel stated that as per Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,  a licence should be renewed from the date of expiry, if an application for same was made within a period of thirty days from the expiry of licence.  However, if such application for renewal was made after more than thirty days, the licence would be renewed from the date of its renewal at a subsequent date.  In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that Sant Lal was holding a driving licence valid till 26.01.1995.  The said licence was got renewed with effect   from 26.09.1995, making it clear that the driver had no valid licence at the time of the two accidents.  The petitioner insurance company was therefore, well within its rights to repudiate the claim filed by the respondent.

6.     We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. There is a delay of 42 days in filing the revision petition.  The petitioner has explained that time was spent in procuring copy of the order of the District Forum and hence the petition could not be filed in time.  Although, the reasons do not seem to be convincing, yet looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is ordered to be condoned in the interest of justice.  

7.     The factual matrix of the case brings out that the licence of the driver had expired on 26.01.1995 and he got it renewed after a time of 7 ½ months in September, 1995.  It is very clear that the driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of both the accidents.  The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the citation 2007 (4) SCALE 292 Ishwar Chand & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court made it clear that as per proviso to Section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was very clear that if renewal application was not filed within thirty days, the renewal shall take effect from the date of the renewal.  The Apex Court held in that case that the driver did not have a valid license on the date of the accident.  The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the citation 2008 (3) SCALE 570, Sardari & Ors. Vs. Sushil Kumar.  The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the claim, if the driver did not have a valid licence.

8.     The District Forum has observed in their order that the burden of proof lies upon the petitioner / opposite party to prove that the driver of the bus was not holding any driving licence.  However, the present petitioner had not been able to produce any record to this effect before the District Forum.  We do not agree with this contention of the District Forum.  A licence is duly issued by a Public Authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.  Even if the petitioner failed to prove that the driver was not having a valid licence, this factor does not validate the licence of the licence holder.  It was the duty of the District Forum to go into the depth of the matter and ascertain the facts from the official record.  The State Commission have also dismissed the appeals without giving any cogent reason about the validity of the licence.

9.     In the light of above discussion, it is very clear that the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are not based on correct appreciation of the facts on record and they have allowed the claim, although it was very clear that the driver was not having an effective valid driving licence at the time of both the accidents.  This revision petition therefore succeeds and the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission are set aside.  It is held that the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation from the petitioner and both the complaints are ordered to be dismissed, with no order as to costs.