MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellants/OPs against the order, dated 15.2.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 304 of 2010 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to make payment of the claim to the complainant, as per the assessment of the surveyor alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of its repudiation i.e. from 9.4.2010. It was further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. It was further directed that the OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the same, within 30 days, failing which, they would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @ 18% p.a. since the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 9.4.2010, till its payment to the complainant.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant being the owner of Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. CH-03-Y-7343, got comprehensively, insured the same from the OPs for one year from 15.12.2008 to 14.12.2009 by making a payment of Rs.7,011/- as premium.  It was stated that on 9.12.2009, the driver of the complainant, went to pick up the parents of the complainant from Haridwar. When the vehicle reached near village Shambuwala, the car skidded in the drain 40 ft. down and due to that, the same (vehicle) was totally damaged. FIR No.279 dated 9.12.2009 was got registered in Police Station, Nahan. The estimate of repair of the car was Rs.3,11,350.79 paise.  It was further stated that the complainant had applied to the OPs, for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,11,350.79 paise but they repudiated his claim, on the ground, that driver Ajay Kumar was not holding an effective and valid driving licence, on the date of accident, and that the car was used for commercial purpose, whereas, the same was got insured, from the Company, as a private car. It was further stated that the abovesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OPs, wherein, it was stated that when the claim was lodged, it was got investigated, from M/s Royal Associates, Investigating & Detective Agency. After investigation, it was revealed that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven for commercial purpose, as one paid passenger namely Bijender Kumar r/o Ambala, was traveling in the said car. It was further stated that Sh.R.S. Gill, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was deputed to assess the loss, who submitted his final report dated 17.3.2010. It was further stated that claim was rightly repudiated, as the car was being used for commercial purpose and also the driver of the car did not possess a valid driving licence, at the time of accident. All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice.

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

5.       The learned District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the order.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/OPs, filed the instant appeal. 

7.         We have heard Sh.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, proxy for Sh.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants, Sh.Suresh Parashar, Advocate for the respondent/complainant, and have perused the record, carefully.

8.       The learned proxy Counsel for the appellants/OPs, contended that the complainant had not approached the District Forum with clean hands as he concealed the material facts. It was further contended that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, as the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, and the driver of the car was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. As per the “driver clause” of the Insurance Policy, the vehicle was required to be driven by a person holding a valid and effective driving licence. Upon investigation, it was clearly proved that the driving licence of driver Ajay Kumar was not issued by RLA, Amb., District Una.  It was further contended that no deficiency of service could be attributed to appellants, as the complainant himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as indicated above. It was further submitted that in Surajmal Ram Niwas Oil Mills Vs. UIIC 2010 SCC Vol. 10, UIIC Vs. Harchand Rai, reported as 2004 VOL (8) SCC Page 643 and LIC Vs. S.Sindhu reported as 2006 Vol. 7 SCC Page 258 it was held that the terms and conditions of the policy are required to be construed strictly. 

9.       The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant, contended that the complainant got insured his car with the OPs for the period from 15.12.2008 to 14.12.2009 by making payment of premium of Rs.7,011/- and on 9.12.2009 it met with an accident. He further submitted that the District Forum was right in holding that the complainant was entitled to Rs.3,11,350.79 paise, being repair charges paid by him for the repair of the car. He further submitted that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant, was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy.

10.            Undisputedly, the respondent/complainant was the owner of the car in question, which was got insured from the appellants/OPs. The said car met with an accident on 9.12.2009. At the time of accident, the car was being driven by Mr.Ajay Kumar, the driver, who was in possession of a driving licence bearing No. DL/N/1756026 dated 7.7.2006. Subsequently, when the complainant lodged a claim with the appellants/OPs, they appointed an investigator, who in order to verify the authenticity of licence of the driver, approached the Registration & Licencing Authority, Amb. (HP). In the report dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure RX) of the said Authority, it was stated that the driving licence in the name of Mr.Ajay Kumar S/o Pardeep Kumar had not been issued by that office, as per office record. In these circumstances, it was proved that the driving licence in possession of Ajay Kumqr S/o Pardeep Kumar, who was driving the car, at the relevant time, was fake. Since the driver of the vehicle, was not holding a valid licence, but, on the other hand, it was proved to be fake, there was a breach of the fundamental terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Non-holding of a valid licence by the driver, was germane to the accident. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700  it was held that if the driver of the vehicle was holding a fake driver licence and while driving the vehicle, by him, it met with an accident, and suffered damage, the owner could not claim any compensation from the Insurance Company. In other words, the benefit cannot be extended to the owner of the offending vehicle. The logic of fake licence has to be considered differently in respect of third party and in respect of own damage claim. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company validly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The District Forum, thus, committed a grave error, in holding that the complainant was entitled to compensation irrespective of the fact, that the driver of the vehicle, was holding a fake licence, when it met with an accident. 

11.       The District Forum relied upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattan Singh 2007 (2) CPC 382  decided by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to hold that the Insurance Company, shall continue to remain liable, unless it was proved that the owner knew at the time of employing the driver, that he was holding a fake licence. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattan Singh, reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh 2004 ACJ I (S.C.).  In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut case (supra,  Swaran Singh’s  case was distinguished, on the ground, that it related to third party claim. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut’s case (supra), by the Hon’ble Apex Court, any principle of law laid down to the contrary in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattan Singh’s case (supra) shall not hold the field.

12.       The order of the District Forum suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.       In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal filed by the OPs and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.

14.       The parties are left to bear their own costs.

15.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost.