Smt. Kamlesh Rai                           ..   Petitioner 
                Vs
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.        ...  Respondent

BEFORE : Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta, Presiding Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

Dated: 30th August 2004

JUSTICE K.S.GUPTA, MEMBER

     This revision is directed against the order dated 30-3-2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Haryana allowing appeal against the order dated 29-4-1999 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.

     Petitioner was the owner of a metador having registration no. DL-4CE-4203 and she got it insured with the respondent/opposite party for the period from 16-12-1995 to 15-12-1996. Metador met with an accident on 20-2-1996 resulting into damaged allegedly of Rs. 80,000. At the time of accident it was being driven by Sanjeev Kumar. On being intimated regarding accident, the respondent appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. Later on respondent repudiated the claim stating that driving license of Sanjeev Kumar was not traceable in the office of District Transport Office, Hoshiarpur. Petitioner alleged that on verification from the office of District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur it was found that driving license of Sanjeev Kumar was valid up to 9-4-1997 and same was renewed on 22-4-1997 for a further period of three years. Alleging deficiency in service the petitioner filed complaint seeking direction to the respondent to pay aforesaid amount of Rs. 80,000. Respondent contested the complaint and the main ground taken by way of preliminary objection in the written version was that Sanjeev Kumar held a bogus license at the time of accident. On analysing the evidence of the parties the District Forum found that driving license no. 661/DTO/91 had been issued in the name of one Balbeer Singh for Scooter/Motorcycle: this license was renewed for HTV in the name of Sanjeev Kumar with no. 266/RDI/93-94 on 8-4-1994 and was valid up to 5-3-1997: License was further renewed from 22-4-1997 to 21-4-2000 in the name of Sanjeev Kumar. Holding that if a fake license was validly got renewed the owner cannot be made to suffer the District Forum directed the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 80,000 with interest at 18% p.a. from 16-7-1997 and cost of Rs. 5,000. 

     In appeal filed against District Forum's order by the respondent, the plea taken was that renewal of an original fake license would not make it a valid one. Relying on the decision in C.A. No. 238 of 2001 - New India Assurance Co. Vs Kamala, decided on 27-3-2001 by the Supreme Court, the State Commission allowed appeal and dismissed the complaint. It is this order which is being assailed in this revision petition.

     We have heard Shri Bharat Singh for petitioner and Shri Vishnu Mehra for respondent - Insurance Company. 

     Issue similar to that involved in this revision, was also involved in R.P. No. 2166 of 2003 - Harbhajan Lal Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided by this Commission on 29-9-2003. In that case, original license on the basis whereof license was renewed by RTO, Raipur, was fake, it having not been issued by RTO, Kanpur. Considering the ratio in Kamala's case (supra) and also latter decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lehru & Ors., JT (2003) 2 S.C. 595, this Commission held the Insurance Company deficient in service in repudiating the claim observing that petitioner did not have the knowledge that driving license of Kuldeep Singh, driver was fake. In present case, the respondent had not lead any evidence to prove that the driving license possessed by said Sanjeev Kumar was fake to the knowledge of petitioner at the time she engaged him as driver. Case is fully covered by Harbhajan Lal's case and revision petition, thus deserves to be accepted and order of District Forum restored reducing the rate of interest to 9% from 18% p.a. which seems to be on higher side.

     Accordingly, while allowing revision petition, the order dated 30-3-2001 is set aside and that of District Forum dated 29-4-1999 restored with modifications in rate of interest as noticed in preceding para of the order. No order as to cost.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Harbhajan Lal on 16 September, 2008

Bench: Mr. B.N. Agrawal, Mr. G.S. Singhvi, JJ

National Insurance Co. Ltd.                             ...Appellant(s)
                   Versus
Harbhajan Lal                                                  ...Respondent(s)

With Civil Appeal Nos.3198 of 2005, 3612 of 2005, 5644 of 2006, 3249 of 2003, 3250 of 2003, 3251 of 2003, 3252 of 2003, 6267 of 2003, 5554 of 2004 and 7656 of 2004

Civil Appeal No.3612 of 2005:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum [for short, District Forum] dismissed the complaint on the ground that the driving licence was a forged one. In view of this finding, the District Forum came to the conclusion that as there was no deficiency in service, the complaint was fit to be dismissed and the same was, accordingly, dismissed. Against the said order, when the matter was taken to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, State Commission] in appeal, the order was reversed by placing reliance upon the judgement rendered by this court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh Ors. [2004 (3) S.C.C.297], which order has been confirmed in revision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, National Commission']. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) was applicable only in relation to the case of third party. In the present case, no complaint was filed by third party but the complaint was filed by the insured. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stated that it has been clarified by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut [2007 (3) S.C.C.700) that the ratio laid down in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) would apply only in relation to the cases of third party and not in relation to the own damaged cases, in which eventuality the insurer is only liable to show that the licence was fake one. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders rendered by the State Commission and the National Commission are set aside and the same passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint is restored. Civil Appeal Nos.3249 of 2003, 3250 of 2003, 3251 of 2003 and 3252 of 2003: Perused the records.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
 

Civil Appeal No.3198 of 2005:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
 

Civil Appeal No.5644 of 2005:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 
 

Civil Appeal No.3501 of 2004:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. In spite of service of notice, nobody has entered appearance to contest the prayer made in this appeal.

In the present case, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum [for short, District Forum] allowed the complaint but when the matter was taken in appeal, the same was reversed and the complaint was dismissed. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, a revision was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, National Commission'], which though has recorded a finding categorically that the licence of the driver employed by the insured was fake one but there was nothing to show that this fact was within the knowledge of the insured. Hence, this appeal by special leave. In our view, the point involved in the present case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut [2007 (3) S.C.C.700), in which it has been laid down that no sooner the insurer is able to prove that the licence was fake one, the insurer is absolved from its liability.

This being the position, we are of the view that the National Commission was not justified in allowing the revision application. ...

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the National Commission is set aside and the same passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is restored. 
 

Civil Appeal No.6267 of 2003:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
 

Civil Appeal No.5554 of 2004:

Perused the records.

We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
 

Civil Appeal No.7656 of 2004:

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

......................J.

[B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.

[G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi,
September 18, 2008.