UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. THEOG TEHSIL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING COMMITTEE UNION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal, only ground urged on behalf of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant was that the District Forum committed grave error in allowing the complaint despite the licence of the driver having been found to be fake. He further submitted that prayer to summon the witness from the office of concerned Licensing Authority from Patiala under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was wrongly rejected. Thus, according to him, on both these grounds, this appeal deserves to be allowed and consequently impugned order set aside. Both these pleas were contested by Mr. Chauhan on behalf of the respondent. Per him, the impugned order calls for no interference. Further according to him, this case is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., 2003 2 SLT 516 . He further pointed out that in order to succeed on the plea of fake licence of the driver Dhian Singh, appellant was further required to show that despite being aware regarding such fakeness, his client employed the driver, as all exclusions have to be established by the appellant. By referring to material on record Mr. Chauhan also submitted that no affidavit of the person who had made inquiry as regards the fakeness or otherwise of the driving licence i.e., Er. Gautam Modi, was placed on record. Therefore, his report cannot be looked into for any purpose. Regarding endorsement of the office of the District Transport Officer, Patiala, Mr. Chauhan urged that there is no material on record to show as to who had made the endorsement on the original and whether he had the authority to do so. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties, we may clarify that the vehicle being insured with the appellant and during the validity of the insurance policy, its having met with accident on 21.10.1994, is not in dispute. Therefore, we have not taken into account all other detailed facts set out by the parties in their respective pleadings. In order to succeed in its defence that the licence was fake, in our view, appellant was required to have established by reliable and acceptable material on record that the respondent was well aware regarding the fakeness of licence and still it engaged driver Dhian Singh. There is no such material on record. This is an exclusion that was required to be proved by some material on record by the appellant. In addition to this, when a reference is made to Annexure R.2 i.e., photostat copy of the application moved by Er. Gautam Modi, to the District Transport Officer, Patiala for verification of the driving licence which contained an endorsement to the effect returned in original with the remarks that D/L No. 6837 in the name of Mr. Dhian Singh was not issued by this office. Original may be produced for verification." Why original was not produced, there is no material on record. Mr. Sandeep Sharma was not in a position to explain any reason for non -production of the original driving licence. We may also notice in this behalf that it is not the case of the appellant that it had called upon the respondent to produce the original driving licence and needful was not done, therefore, it (the appellant) was handicapped from producing the original.

(3.) NOW coming to the plea of Mr. Sharma that application of his client under Section 13(4) of the Act of 1986 was wrongly rejected. We find no substance in this submission for the simple reason that in case the original licence had been produced for verification as observed hereinabove and then affidavit of Er. Gautam Modi was filed, there was no need for summoning the witness from the office of District Transport Office, Patiala. Therefore, no benefit can be derived by the appellant from rejection of his said application.