JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent owned a truck bearing no. RJ-01-G-6883 which he had got insured with the petitioner company.  The case of the petitioner, as set out in the consumer complaint, is that on 06.06.2012, driver Pappu had taken the truck loaded with dry mustard grass and while unloading it, sparks came out suddenly from the silencer due to which dry mustard grass caught fire and the truck got burnt.  Fire Brigade was also called on the spot to extinguish the fire.  On the petitioner being informed, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss.  The surveyor assessed the loss to the complainant at Rs.4,91,000/- but he recommended claim on Constructive Total Loss Basis only subject to the terms & conditions of the policy and acceptance of liability by the insurer.  An investigator was appointed by the petitioner to investigate the incident and he submitted report dated 04.11.2012 stating therein that in fact the vehicle was being driven by one Hansraj and not by Pappu.  During the course of investigation, the aforesaid investigator obtained a certified copy of the report of Fire Department obtained under the Right to Information Act and on comparison of the said certified copy with the copy provided by the complainant, it transpired that the complainant had, by hand, scored off the name of the driver and changed it from Hansraj to Pappu.  The claim was thereafter, repudiated by the insurer vide letter dated 28.08.2013 which to the extent, it is relevant, reads as under:

1. While holding the actual facts, you have mentioned name of driver as Pappu cutting name of Hansraj in the fire brigade report issued by fire brigade office whereas as per the copy of the fire brigade report obtained by investigator through RTI, there is no cutting in the name of Hansraj and in national newspapers, Dainik Bhaskar and Rajasthan Patrik, name of driver of your vehicle has been shown as Hansraj.As per these documents, it was found proved that at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven by Hansraj and you have made unsuccessful effort to hide these facts.You have violated the principle of utmost good faith of insurance between insurer and insured and there was breach of contract then as misrepresentation of material facts, you have produced fake documents hence your claim has been repudiated being violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

2. As per facts and documents collected during investigation, it was proved that at the time of accident, Hansraj was driving the said vehicle.You have not produced any driving license of driver Hansraj.As per policy conditions, it is essential to have a valid and effective driving license with driver of vehicle.You have violated the said condition hence your claim has been repudiated.

2.      The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant/respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 11.12.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,91,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, compensation quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.50,000/-.  Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 

3.      The first question which comes to consideration in this revision petition is as to whether the vehicle was being driven by Hansraj or it was being driven by Pappu.  This becomes relevant as no driving license in favour of Hansraj has been produced leading to the inference that he did not possess a valid driving license at the time this incident happened.  As noted earlier, the case of the complainant/respondent, in the consumer complaint is that the truck was being driven by Pappu who had taken it alongwith dry mustard grass loaded in it.  A perusal of the certified copy of the report of the Fire Department dated 10.09.2012 would show that when the Fire Brigade reached the spot, it came to know that Ramlal S/o Deva was the owner of the truck whereas Hansraj S/o Prahlad was its driver.  The number of the vehicle was also mentioned in the report of the Fire Department.  A comparison of the said certified copy, which is available on page no. 75 of the paper-book which the complainant made available to the insurer, would show that the name Hansraj which had been typed in the report, was scored off and the word ‘Pappu’ was written by hand in the copy made available by the complainant/respondent to the insurer.  It is therefore, evident that a forged copy of the report of the Fire Department was submitted by the complainant to the insurer in order to substantiate his claim.  By submitting a forged document in support of his claim, the complainant/respondent tried to defraud the insurer and therefore, the insurer would be justified in rejecting the claim on account of submission of the said forged document itself. 

4.      The submission of a forged copy of the report of the Fire Department also gives rise to the inference that in fact the truck was being driven by Hansraj and since he did not possess a driving license, the complainant forged the said copy by changing the name of the driver from Hansraj to Pappu.  Even as per the police report, Hansraj was the driver whereas Ramlal was the owner of the truck and both of them were found present on the spot, when the police officer reached there on receipt of information with respect to the fire which engulfed the truck.  Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that it was Hansraj and not Pappu who was driving the truck at the time it caught fire. 

5.      The learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submits that since the truck had been stopped for unloading the goods and was not moving on the road at the time it caught fire, it would be immaterial as to whether it was being driven by a person holding a valid driving license or by a person who did not hold such a license.  I however, find no merit in this contention.  The place where the goods were being unloaded from the truck was not the final destination of the truck.  The truck had not been parked there.  It had only been stopped for the purpose of unloading the goods.  It was driven by Hansraj, when brought to the place where the goods were unloaded.   The truck was in start condition, as is evident from the fact that the fire happened on account of sparks generated by the silencer of the truck.  There could be no question of sparks generating from the silencer had it been switched off.  Therefore, this is a case where someone was on the wheels of the truck, which was in a start position at the time the fire took place and the place where the fire took place was not the final destination of the truck since it had to come back after unloading the goods.

6.      Since there is no evidence of Hansraj possessing a valid driving license at the time the truck caught fire, there is no escape from the conclusion that the truck was being driven by a person who did not possess a valid and subsisting driving license.  The insurer is therefore, not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss suffered by him.  For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside.  The complaint is consequently, dismissed with no order as to costs.