1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 10.12.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 237/2010. In this appeal, the Appeal of Petitioners/Opposite Parties (OPs) was allowed in part and reduced the compensation from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.75,000. Vide the Order dated 04.06.2010, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad (the “District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 308 of 2009 allowed the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent in part.

2.      There was 21 days delay in filing the Revision Petition. Vide Order dated 12.02.2014, this Commission condoned the delay.

3.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

4.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he is the owner of truck No. JH-10-F-6021. It was properly insured under Package Policy No. 2947 with the Opposite Parties (OPs) from 30.09.2007 to 29.09.2008. On 04.06.2008, the said truck was involved in a collision with another truck, resulting in significant damage. The incident was reported both to the Gourhar Police Station (Case No. 23/08 dated 05.06.2008) and OPs. A surveyor appointed by the OPs assessed the loss to be around Rs.1,30,000. Subsequently, the truck underwent repairs, and a claim was submitted. However, the OPs repudiated the claim on the grounds that at time of the accident the driver of the Complainant's vehicle did not have a valid driving license.

5.      Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint (No. 308 of 2009) before the District Forum seeking relief of Rs.1,30,000 towards loss; Rs.20,000 as compensation for harassment; and Rs.5,000 for litigation cost.Top of Form

6.      Upon notice, the OPs filed their reply, denying the claim of the Complainant and contended that the claim was denied due to the insured deliberately breaching the terms and conditions outlined in the insurance policy, rendering the claim void and illegitimate. The repudiation of the claim stemmed from the charge-sheeted driver, Md. Nizam, holding an invalid and ineffective driving license. Further, the OP clarified that Md. Kaisar was not the primary driver of the mentioned vehicle at the time of the reported accident, as it was being driven by Md. Nizam.

7.      The District Forum vide order dated 04.06.2010 allowed the complaint in part and granted the following relief:

  "… From the perusal of the policy Bond it is clear that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with the O.P, the copy of F.I.R. reveals that there was an accident of the vehicle charge-sheet contained therein reveals that Md. Nizam was the driver on the date of the accident of the vehicle, the photocopy of driving license Annexed therein reveals that the driving license of Md. Nizam was valid up to 14.5.2010 while the accident took place on 4.6.08. Money receipt dt. 11.08.08 transpires that the complainant is incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.1,27,000/- in repairing the said damaged vehicle. We have also perused the citation reported In (1) 1996 (1) CPR 91 (NC) Jitendra Kr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2) 2001 (4) CPR 181 Sabey Ram Sharma Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., H.P. State commission (3) 2009 (3) CPR 48, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi, Jharkhand State Commission from the dicta of the aforesaid authorities, we hereby opine that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant is wrong and the complainant is entitled to have the reliefs.

  Accordingly, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh) as lump sum amount for expenses of repairing along with cost of Rs.2000/- as a litigation cost within 30 days from the date of order i.e., 4.6.2010. 

  The case is allowed in part on contest with cost and finally disposed of.

8.      Being aggrieved by the Order of the learned District forum, the Appellants/OPs filed an Appeal No. 237/2010 before the State Commission. The State Commission in its Order dated 10.12.2012 allowed the Appeal in part, reduced the quantum of compensation with the following observation: -

  “5. Heard both sides at length and perused the impugned order. Undisputedly the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party on 4-06-08 but the objection was raised on grounds of driving license. The surveyor's report enclosing verification from D.T.O, Dhanbad confirms that Md. Nizams license was only up to 23-07-07. However, in view of the decisions in Nitin Khandelwal and Amlendoo Sahu's case, the loss may be reimbursed on non-standard basis. The loss has been assessed by the lower forum at Rs. 1,00,000/- which needs to be reduced to 75% of this amount.

  6. In result following the law cited above the award is fixed on the basis of non-standard basis at Rs.75,000/-. In the facts of this case neither compensation nor cost is granted. The appellant shall pay Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant within six weeks of this order failing which it may be realized with interest @8% PA from today till realization. The appeal is allowed in part.”

9.      Being dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 10.12.2012 of the State Commission, the Petitioners / OPs have filed the instant Revision Petition bearing no. 1744 of 2013.

10.    Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material on record including the orders of both the fora and arguments advanced from both the parties.

11.    The main issue in the instant case is whether the claim for damage sustained by a vehicle in a road accident is admissible, when the driver of such vehicle was in possession of a forged and invalid driving license at the time of the accident.

12.    The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the critical issue of the allegedly forged driving license held by the driver, Md. Nizam, involved in the accident on 04.06.2008. Despite presenting records from the District Transport Officer verifying the driving license as forged, the District Forum accepted it as genuine without requiring proof. The revision petition contests this decision on the grounds that the insured vehicle driven by Md. Nizam, had license that had actually expired on 23.07.2007. The State Commission’s reliance on judgments in Nitin Khandelwal and Amlendu Sahoo was contested, arguing that these rulings were distinguishable from the current case. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saheb Singh (2010) 14 SCC 766, it was held that the insured cannot claim any compensation for the damages to his own vehicle where the license of the driver found to fake and the judgment of Laxmi Narain Dhut was found to be squarely applicable to the present case. Additionally, reliance was also placed on Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. vs Zaharulnisha and Ors(2008)12 SCC 385, holding that the driver of the vehicle who does not possess license to drive scooter drove a scooter in violation of Section 10 (2) of the MV Act and the Insurance company was held not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurer was directed to pay and recover the owner of the insured vehicle as it was a third-party liability case.

13.    On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent argued that Petitioner filed a meritless petition which does not disclose any substantial grounds for intervention of this Commission. This case is entirely based on the premise that the driving license of Md. Nizam was not valid at the time of accident and thus, the petitioner has no liability to pay the claim. The Counsel relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, wherein the Hon'ble Court has at length dealt with the issue of invalidity of driving license and vis-a-vis liability of insurer to pay compensation for motor accidents and held as follows:-

"106. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: ...... (iii) The breach of policy condition, e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time,

(iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for would be on them. ...... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act.

14.    The learned Counsel for the Respondent also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 420, wherein which the Hon'ble Court dealt with the question as to "Whether claim of damages can be repudiated by insurance company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license?" and the same was answered in negative. In the present case, the only contention is that of invalidity of license and the Petitioner neither alleged nor established breach by the Respondent at any stage. Mere invalid driving license is not sufficient for repudiating claim, intentional breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle must also be shown. Further Reliance is placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. us. Lehru & Ors. (2003) 3  SCC 338 & Pepsu RTC vs. National Insurance Co. (2013)10 SCC 217. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Nirmala Kothari V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1999-2000 of 2020 dated 04th March, 2020", has held that:

"While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving license. 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 the RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence....”

15.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

16.    The petitioner's primary concern revolves around the validity of the driver's license, specifically that of Md. Nizam, involved in the accident on 04.06.2008 and challenged the acceptance of the forged license by the District Forum, despite presenting evidence from the District Transport Office confirming that the license was forged. The petitioner contended that the insured vehicle, driven by Md. Nizam, had license that had expired on 23.07.2007, prior to the accident. They contested the State Commission's reliance on specific judgments which are distinguishable from the current case. To support the stand, the petitioner cited precedents like National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Saheb Singh (2010) 14 SCC 766 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Zaharulnisha and Ors (2008) 12 SCC 385. Their argument revolves around proving the fundamental breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding the driver's valid license and its direct contribution to the accident. This becomes crucial in determining the admissibility of the insurance claim. There is no third-party claim under dispute and the claim in question is that of owner/ insured himself who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person who has no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle, which had met with the accident. This is in in breach of Motor Vehicles Act as well as terms of the insurance contract in question. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief from the insurer under the policy in question.

17.    In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned State Commission is set aside. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed.

18.    There shall be no order as to costs. AllTop of Form pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

19.    The Registry is directed to release the Statutory Deposit amount, if any due, in favour of the Appellant.