SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

            The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency in service against the Opp. Parties claiming compensation.  

2.         The factual matrix of this case is that deceased husband of the complainant owned a TATA Indica car bearing registration No.OR-01H-4651 being financed by ICICI Bank, Balasore for his personal use. He had valid driving license to drive LMV. Said vehicle was insured with the OP vide Policy No.163005/31/05/61/00003193 which was valid from 7.10.2005 to 6.10.2006. On 20.3.2006, while the husband of the complainant had been to Bhadrak by driving the alleged car met with an accident with a truck near village Dahisada for which he died at the spot and the vehicle was totally damaged. The IIC, Soro PS registered Soro P.S. Case No.78 of 2006 against the driver of the offending truck. The complainant submitted application as well as claim form along with required documents in time intimating the death of her husband in the accident to the OP, but the has not yet released the claim in favour of the complainant. Thus, the complainant sent a legal notice against the OP on 21.8.2008 requesting for early settlement of the claim, but in vain. So, the inaction of the OP in the matter makes out a clear case of deficiency in service. For the above act of the OP, the complainant not only suffered mental agony but also sustained financial loss.

            The cause of action arose on 20.3.2006, when the alleged accident took place and on 22.8.2008 when the OP received the legal notice. Hence, this case.

            To substantiate her case, the complainant has relied on the following documents, which are placed in the record, as mentioned hereunder-

1. Photocopy of Policy certificate.
2. Photocopy of RC Book of the car in question.
3. Photocopy of Death certificate of the husband of the complainant.
4. Photocopy of Police papers.
5. Photocopy of Driving License of the husband of the complainant. 
6. Photocopy of Legal notice.
7. Photocopy of Registration receipt and AD.

3.         In the present case, Ops made their appearance and filed their joint written version denying the averments made in the complaint. They have challenged that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case and the case is not maintainable. Admitting the fact that the alleged car was insured with their Insurance Company and the fact of alleged road accident, they have stated, inter alia, that on receipt of the information from the complainant, one Surveyor was deputed for inspection of the vehicle in question in the premises of United Auto, Bampada, Balasore to survey the spot of accident, who had submitted his report on 11.7.2006. Thereafter, Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss in respect of the alleged vehicle and also deputed one Investigator to investigate about the genuineness of the DL from the licensing authority. Surveyor has submitted his report and the Investigator has also submitted his report stating that the DL of the deceased husband of the complainant was a fake one although it was renewed from time to time. Hence, the OP issued one letter to the complainant stating as to why the claim would not be repudiated. That apart, the complainant has not submitted the PM report so also the final investigation report in respect of the concerned PS Case. However,  their deputed advocate Sri A. K. Das submitted the copy of the PM report and other police papers in connection to Soro PS Case No.78 dated 20.3.2006. Taking into consideration the fake driving license, the OP have repudiated the claim of the complainant. Therefore, they have not committed any deficiency in service, as claimed by the complainant. Lastly, it is prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

            In support of its case, the OP has relied on the following documents which are placed in the case record-

1. Photocopy of Insurance policy.
2. Photocopy of Intimation letter.
3. Photocopy of Letter dated 27.3.06 of the OP issued to the complainant.
4. Photocopy of Original claim form.
5. Photocopy of Surveyor report.
6. Photocopy of Letter dated 10.5.06.
7. Photocopy of Letter dated 18.7.06.
8. Photocopy of Surveyor report.
9. Photocopy of Letter dated 12.7.06.
10. Photocopy of Letter dated 25.7.06.
11. Photocopy of Original forwarding letter of OP.
12. Photocopy of DL verification report.
13. Photocopy of Original application dated 26.7.06.
14. Photocopy of Investigator report.
15. Photocopy of DL No.101/Bls-85-86.
16. Photocopy of Letter dated 13.9.06.
17. Photocopy of DL.
18. Photocopy of DL verification report.
19. Photocopy of Letter dated 4.5.09.
20. Photocopy of Letter dated 12.9.06.
21. Photocopy of RC Book.
22. Photocopy of letter dated 20.4.09.
23. Photocopy of Policy condition.

4.         In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

(ii)         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

(iii)        Whether this consumer case is maintainable?

(iv)        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?

(v)        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

(vi)        To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?

F  I  N  D  I  N  G  S

5.         In the present case, the main crux for repudiation of the claim of the complainant is that on the date of accident i.e. 20.3.2006, the deceased husband of the complainant namely Jagabandhu Rout himself was driving the insured vehicle in question, who had no valid/ fake driving license. In this connection, on perusal of Annexure-5, the photocopy of driving license stands in the name of Jagabandhu Rout, it is seen that the same is a renewal driving license issued by the RTA, Balasore up to 21.10.2006 basing upon the original DL bearing No.23566 of 1978 issued by the RTA of Kamrup, Guwahati in the State of Assam. On perusal of Annexure-L to Annexure-S, it is found that the OP-Insurance Company made a verification with regard to the authenticity of the Driving License bearing No.23566/78 in respect of the deceased husband of the complainant from the District Transport Officer, Kamrup, Guwahati and found that the same was not issued from their office. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to file any rebuttal evidence to challenge as to the genuineness of the DL of Jagabandhu Rout. As a point of law, this Commission have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Law empowers the Licensing Authority to renew a driving license with effect from the date of its expiry. On the other hand, no Licensing Authority has the power to renew a fake license and, therefore, the renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake license as genuine. Further, the Licensing Authority has also no scope to take test while renew a license issued by another Licensing Authority and thus a fake and forged document would not acquire legal validity at any point of time and remains null and void forever. Therefore, it is held that the deceased husband of the complainant namely Jagabandhu Rout was driving the insured vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-01H-4651 without a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident in contravention to the terms and condition of the policy. Therefore, the OP-Insurance Company has rightly approved repudiation of the claim of the complainant.

6.         In view of the above discussions made earlier, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file the case. Consequently, the complainant is not entitled to any relief, what-so-ever claimed in her complaint.

            Hence, it is ordered -

O   R   D   E   R

            The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP. No order as to costs.   

            Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission, this the 7^th day of October, 2024 under my signature and the seal of this Commission.