PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER The vehicle of the Respondent complainant met with an accident on 10.2.1992 during the currency of the insurance policy which was valid until 17.1.1993. The vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by one Swaran Singh. The insurance company was informed about the accident who appointed a surveyor. The surveyor assessed the damage at Rs.1,04,935/-. The claim, however, was repudiated on the ground that the driving licence of Swaran Singh was found to be fake and forged. On a complaint being filed before the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party was ordered to pay to the respondent complainant the amount of damage as assessed by their surveyor and in addition pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from the date of repudiation of the claim till its payment. Appeal filed by the petitioner/opposite party before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi was dismissed albeit with the modification that the interest awarded by the District Forum being unjustified in terms of the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant would be entitled to only the amount as assessed by the surveyor. The State commission, all the same awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that the petitioner/opposite party had wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Aggrieved upon this order of the State Commission that the petitioner/opposite party has filed this revision petition before us. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. Before reverting to the main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party, it would be useful to refer to the factual matrix of the case. While the petitioner/opposite party had appointed a surveyor to asses the damage soon after the receipt of information with regard to the accident, they had also appointed an investigator to enquire into the genuineness of the driving licence of Swaran Singh. While the driving licence stood renewed by the R.T.O Vadodra, the same had been originally issued by R.T.A, Cuttack. In response to a query from the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Cuttack, the Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack had replied that no driving licence had been issued by their office in favour of Swaran Singh. The driving licence in question was, therefore, a forged and fake one. In this backdrop, the moot point for consideration is whether the State Commission was justified in holding as under : “3. We have taken a consistent view that wherever plea of a driver having not holding a valid licence is taken by the insurance companies, it is too much for the consumer to make enquiries into the genuineness of the licence issued by some or other authority through investigation or by private agency engaging services of the police and finding out the genuineness of the licence. It is on the face value of the licence issued by a relevant authority that a person engages services of a driver. 4. In the instant case the driver had been driving the vehicle for long and licence was renewed and therefore we do not feel inclined to interfere with the finding of fact returned by the District Forum in this regard and also do not feel inclined to interfere with the direction to make the payment of the amount of loss of the vehicle as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the appellant”. (emphasis supplied) This view of the State Commission runs contrary to the law on the subject laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments. Reference can profitably be made to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) SCC 700 ; (ii) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs.Meena Variyal, (2007) ACJ 1284 (SC) ; (iii) United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Devender Singh (2008) ACJ SC ; (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Vs.Prithviraj (2008) 1 CPJ 33 (SC). In the case in hand, the petitioner New India Assurance Co. Ltd. have produced irrefutable evidence that the driver of the vehicle in question, Swaran Singh was not having a valid driving licence, since the issuing authority i.e. RTA, Cuttack in their reply to the query from the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd. have clearly stated that no such driving licence has been issued and the driving licence in question was a forged and fake one. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) has referred to para 12 of its earlier judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Vs. Kamala, SCC 347, wherein it has been held as under : “12. As a point of law we 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. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to ‘renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry’. No licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine.” (emphasis supplied) The same legal preposition has been affirmed in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut wherein while summarizing the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 38 has held that : “where originally the licence was a fake one, the renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality”. In this view of the settled law on the subject, the findings of both the fora below that the licence of Swaran Singh stood renewed by RTO, Vadodra and, therefore, valid and in particular the view expressed by the State Commission extracted above are totally erroneous. The order of the State Commission being illegal, therefore, is set aside. The revision petition accordingly, is accepted and the complaint is dismissed. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. …………………..………J (R.K. BATTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) ……………….…………… (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER St/16 | 
