PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.       Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 279 of 2009.  The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malda in Complaint Case No. 79 of 2008.  The District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant against the Insurance Company, seeking the insurance claim in respect of the insured vehicle which was damaged on account of an accident, with which the vehicle in question met on 15.06.2007 during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company having already repudiated the claim on the ground that the petitioner/complainant failed to produce the driving license of the driver Alok Choudhury and in any case the driving license produced later on was found to be fake having not been issued by the concerned Motor Licensing Authority of Malda.  The State Commission giving the additional reasons has dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the order passed by the District Forum.

2.       We have heard Mr. Santi Ranjan Das, learned counsel representing the petitioner/complainant and have considered his submissions.  The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of the complaint have been amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. 

3.       Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would assail the findings and orders of the fora below primarily on the ground that the same are not based on correct and proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case as also evidence and material so produced on record.  He, however, does not dispute the factum that at the time of lodging the claim, the petitioner/complainant had left the particulars to be given in the relevant column as to the driving license which the driver held at the time of driving the vehicle, when the vehicle met with accident, as also that the Malda Transport Licensing Officer clarified the position that the license of the driver Alok Choudhary so produced on record was a fake one having not been issued by the said authority.  Learned counsel, however, submits that the petitioner/complainant being a woman had employed the driver Alok Choudhury in good faith going by the driving license shown by the driver to her at the time of his engagement for driving the vehicle in question.  He also submits that the driver was otherwise a good driver not lacking in the driving skills and, therefore, the petitioner/complainant cannot be blamed or disentitled altogether in her claim for the loss suffered by her due to the damage to the vehicle in question.

4.       We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant.  These submissions appear to be attractive at the first glance but once we examine the same in depth with reference to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the hollowness of the same would be manifest.  Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the Act) enjoins upon any person driving a motor vehicle of whatever kind and nature to possess a driving license before he embarks upon the activity of driving a motor vehicle.  The so called driver Alok Choudhury did not possess any driving license, what to talk of a valid and effective driving license, at the time of driving the vehicle in question and, therefore, there was a clear cut violation of the provisions of the Act, which, in turn, amounted to a gross breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, disentitling the petitioner/complainant to make any claim whatsoever under the said policy.  Both the fora below have considered the matter in great details and have given a just and proper finding, which is strictly in consonance with the legal position as settled by the Supreme Court and this Commission in a catena of decisions.  In our view, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, warranting interference by this Commission.

5.       The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.  On request of the counsel for the petitioner/complainant, we direct the Registry to supply a copy of this order to him at the earliest, and if possible today itself.