STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation, presently known as DARCL Logistics Ltd., having its office at 19/3, Tilak Bazaar, Hissar, Haryana, through its Authorized Representative.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

[1]   IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110017, through its Managing Director.

[2]   IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., ITGI- Strategic Business Unit, Chandigarh, IFFCO Complex, Plot No.2 (B&C), Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160018, through its Branch/ Regional Manager.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Manish Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh.Ankur Gupta, Advocate proxy of Sh.Raj Karan, Advocate for                the respondents.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.08.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum- I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being the owner of vehicle-TATA 2516 Tipper bearing Regn. No. RJ27-GA-3087, got the same comprehensively insured, from the Opposite Parties (now respondents), for the period from 21.02.2008 to 20.2.2009. During the currency of the Policy, the Tipper, in question, met with an accident at Kharora, District Raipur, Chhatisgarh, on 22.10.2008. F.I.R. No. 331 of 2008 dated 25.10.2008 u/s 304-A IPC, was got registered, against the driver of the truck Bikash Kumar Yadav, who unfortunately died in the same accident. Information with regard to the accident was also given to the concerned Branch Offices of the Insurance Company at Raipur and Chandigarh, on  22.10.2008. All the relevant documents, for settling the claim of the complainant, were supplied to the Opposite Parties, well in time, but they failed to settle the same. It was stated that the complainant, ultimately,  received a letter dated 27.7.2009 Annexure C-12, from the Opposite Parties,  wherein, it was mentioned that the driving licence of Bikash Kumar Yadav (driver of the truck) was verified from the Licensing Authority, Faridabad (actually got verified from Licencing Authority, Patna), and it was confirmed that the same was not issued by the said authority,  and, as such, they closed the claim of the complainant as ‘NO CLAIM’. It was further stated that the complainant had written a series of letters to the Opposite Parties, that the driving licence,  was issued by the Licensing Authority, Patna and not by the Licensing Authority, Faridabad, and a copy of the same, alongwith verification report was also sent to the Opposite Parties, but they failed to settle the genuine claim of the complainant.   It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               The Opposite Parties, in their written version, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that when the information, with regard to the accident, was received by the Opposite Parties, a Surveyor was appointed, who duly assessed and verified the accidental loss, and gave his detailed Motor (Final) Survey Report dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure R-1). According to the said report, the net loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,26,654.10 (infact Rs.1,27,154.10). However, the assessment of the loss was subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It was further stated that the driving licence of the driver of the Tipper, Bikash Kumar Yadav, which was supplied by the complainant, was found to be fake, on the basis of the verification report, having been obtained from the District Transport Officer,  Patna. It was further stated that since, the driver of the Tipper, at the time of accident, was not having an effective driving licence, for driving the same, but, on the other hand, the same was fake, the terms and conditions of the policy were breached, and, as such, the complainant was not entitled to the indemnification of loss.  It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the driving licence  of the driver, supplied by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, was got verified from the District Transport Officer, Patna, and it was found to be fake. Thus, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that there was a breach of the fundamental terms and conditions of the policy, and  the complainant was not entitled to the indemnification of loss.

6.               Ultimately, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.               We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.               There is, no dispute, about the factum that the Tipper, in question, of which the complainant was owner, was got insured with the Opposite Parties, for the period from 21.02.2008 to 20.2.2009. Undisputedly, the accident took place during the currency of the policy. The claim of the complainant was duly investigated, by the Surveyor. The claim was repudiated, by the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 27.07.2009 Annexure C-12, on the ground, that on verification of the driving licence bearing no. 12537, which was supplied by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, of  Bikash Kumar Yadav, driver, who was driving the vehicle, in question, at the relevant time, it was found to be fake. There is, no dispute, about the factum that, in the complaint, it was in clear-cut terms stated by the complainant that Bikash Kumar Yadav, who was driving the Tipper, at the relevant time, was holding a driving licence, issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Patna. Copy of the claim form Annexure C-11 (colly.), at page 43/30 of the District Forum file was placed, on record, by the complainant. A careful perusal of the said Form shows that Bikash Kumar Yadav, son of R.P.D. Yadav, was having driving licence No.12537 and he was driving the vehicle,  the number of which was RJ-27GA 3087, at the time of accident. Annexure R-2 (colly) at page 90/24 of the District Forum file,  is a copy of letter no.2275 dated 28.04.2009, received from the District Transport Authority, Patna, which clearly goes to show that  driving licence No.12537, of  Bikash Kumar Yadav, had not been issued by it.  M/s Shakuntalam Consultancy Private Limited, Patna, had also confirmed that as per the report of the District Transport Authority, Patna, the driving licence of Bikash Kumar Yadav, had not been issued by it. This report of the District Transport Office, Patna, to the effect that driving licence No.12537, was not issued by it, in favour of Bikash Kumar Yadav, remained uncontroverted. Under these circumstances, it could be very well said that driving licence No.12537, which Bikash Kumar Yadav, driver, was holding, at the time of driving the vehicle, when the accident took place, was a fake one.  No doubt, letter Annexure C-12, was originally written by the Opposite Parties, to the complainant, that driving licence No.12537, was got verified from the Licensing Authority, Faridabad. It appears that, on account of typographical mistake, Licensing Authority, Faridabad, was written in this letter,  but, in fact, the driving licence was got verified from the District Transport Authority, Patna, as is evident, from Annexure R-2, referred to above. On account of this clerical mistake, no help could be drawn, by the complainant. Annexure C-1, is a copy of the policy document, issued by the Opposite Parties. On this document, under the Driver Clause, it was in clear-cut terms mentioned “any person including insured, provided that the person held an effective driving licence”. Since the driver, in the present case, was not holding an effective driving licence, at the time of accident, when he was driving the vehicle, but, on the other hand, the same was found to be fake, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as also the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Harbhajan Lal reported in II(2010) CPJ 22 (SC), it was held that, if it is proved, that the licence was fake, then the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any claim. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The findings of the District Forum, to the effect that the complainant was not entitled to the indemnification of loss, on the ground that Bikash Kumar Yadav, driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident was not holding an effective driving licence, but on the other hand, the same was fake, being correct, are affirmed.

10.            The Counsel for the appellant, however, placed reliance on M/s Devsons Pvt. Limited Vs. Manjit Kumar, 2001(3)RCR (Civil) 591, Punjab and Haryana High Court, to contend that  the Insurance Company, could not reject the claim of the complainant, even if, the alleged driving licence was found to be fake. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not appear to be correct. M/s Devsons Pvt. Limited`s case (supra), related to a third party claim, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even otherwise, from the evidence, on record, in the aforesaid case, it was proved that the driving licence held by the Driver, at the time of driving the vehicle, was valid. Under these circumstances, the facts of M/s Devsons Pvt. Limited`s case (supra), are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant, from the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

11.            It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that since Bikash Kumar Yadav, died in the same very accident, later on, his legal representatives, submitted his another original licence, issued by the Licencing Authority, M.V. Department, Agra, which was found to be genuine, and, as such, the claim filed by the complainant, could not be rejected. A copy of the second Driving licence, being held by Bikash Kumar Yadav, is Annexure C-16. The question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, a person, could hold two driving licences, at the same time, for driving a vehicle or not.  Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under:-

“Motor Vehicles Act 1988 –

6. Restriction on the holding of driving licences.

(1) No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner's licence or a driving licence issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 or a document authorising, in accordance with the rules made under Section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.

(2) No holder of a driving licence or a learner's licence shall permit it to be used by any other person.

(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent a licensing authority having the jurisdiction referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 9 from adding to the classes of vehicles which the driving licence authorises the holder to drive”.

12.            The perusal of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, extracted above, clearly goes to reveal that no person, while holding any driving licence, for the time being, in force, could hold any other driving licence, except a Learner`s Licence or a driving licence,  issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 or a document authorizing, in accordance with the Rules,  made under Section 139. Section 18 relates to the driving licences, to drive motor vehicles, belonging to the Central Government. In the instant case, Bikash Kumar Yadav, driver, who was driving the vehicle, in question, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, was neither covered under Section 18, nor under Section 139 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since, Bikash Kumar Yadav, was holding driving licence No.12537, at the time of accident, he could not, as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hold another driving licence. If he held, the second driving licence, in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same could be said to be invalid for all practical purposes. Similar principle of law, was laid down by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Jai Parkash Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC).  The second licence, after the verification of the first licence of Bikash Kumar Yadav, which was found to be fake, set up by the complainant, for all intents and purposes, being illegal and invalid, could not be taken into consideration. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13.            Not only this, even the second licence of Bikash Kumar Yadav, set up by the complainant, could be said to be a document of doubtful authenticity. Annexure R-2(colly), is a copy of the original licence held by Bikash Kumar Yadav, which was submitted to the Opposite Parties, for verification. This licence bears no.12537, issued on 06.09.2001, in the name of Bikash Kumar Yadav, son of R.P.D. Yadav, resident of Fatuah, Patna (Bihar), which was valid from 06.09.2001 upto 05.09.2010. Annexure C-16, copy of the second licence, which was furnished by the complainant bore no. 317/AS/06. It  was issued on 01.02.2006, and the address of Bikash Kumar Yadav, in this copy of the licence, is written as Kuberpur,  Agra. Since, Bikash Kumar Yadav, was  a permanent resident of Fatuha, Patna, Bihar, wherefrom, his first licence bearing number 12537, was issued, which was found to be fake, it is not known, as to how, the Licensing Authority, M.V. Department Agra, allegedly,  issued the second licence,  in his favour. The relevant portion of Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under:-

“Section 9 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

9. Grant of driving licence.-

(1) Any person who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area-

(i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or

(ii) in which the school or establishment referred to in Section 12 from where he is receiving or has received instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situated, for the issue to him of a driving licence.

14.            The careful perusal of the provisions of Section 9 extracted above, clearly goes to reveal, that a person who was not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence, may apply to the Licensing Authority, having jurisdiction in the area, in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, for the issue to him of a driving licence. No evidence was produced by the complainant, to the effect that Bikash Kumar Yadav, was an ordinary resident of Agra or was carrying on business at Kuberpur, Agra. Since, Bikash Kumar Yadav was neither an ordinary resident of Agra, nor was carrying on business there, copy of the licence Annexure C-16, could be said to be of doubtful authenticity. On this ground too, the second licence of Bikash Kumar Yadav, which was provided by the complainant, after the rejection of his claim, on the basis of his first licence, allegedly issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Patna, having been found to be fake, could not be relied upon.

15.            No doubt, during the pendency of appeal, when the provisions of the relevant Act, were brought to the notice of this Commission, it was directed that verification of the second driving licence, no. 317/AS/06, of Bikash Kumar Yadav, submitted by the complainant, be got made from the Licencing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Agra. However, later on, the Counsel for the respondents, after getting a number of opportunities, showed inability of the Opposite Parties, to obtain the verification report, in respect of the second licence. Whatever may be the case, it may be stated here, that this Commission, is bound by the mandatory provisions of Sections 6 and 9, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If, any order regarding the verification of the second driving licence of the driver, which for all practical purposes was illegal, was passed by this Commission, in violation of the provisions of Sections 6 and 9, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, referred to above, the same could not be acted upon.

16.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

17.            The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

18.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

19.            Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

20.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

May 01, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg