UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. DAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) WHETHER renewal of a licence granted to drive motor vehicle which was originally found to be forged would lead to any liability on the part of the insurance company is the core question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 2908 of 2006.

(3.) HOWEVER , a complaint petition was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum complaining deficiency in service for not paying the amount of damages which was covered by the insurance policy, which the appellant was illegally bound to pay. The said complaint petition was allowed awarding a sum of Rs. 1,23,412/ - towards damages, as also a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - towards other heads, besides interest at the rate of 9% per annum, holding : 8. A plea has been taken by the opposite parties that Kulbir Singh, driver was not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of driving the vehicle. However, when Mr.Rajesh Shori inspected the driving licence, he found that the driving licence had been issued by the DTO, Hoshiarpur on 23.11.1998. The original driving licence was issued by the Licensing Authority, Solan in 1991 -92. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties stated that there is no evidence on the file to the effect that the original driving licence had been issued by the Licensing Authority at Solan (H.P.), as mentioned in the report Ex. R -10. It has been clearly stated by the complainant in his affidavit Ex. C -1 that, when he employed the driver Kulbir Singh, he was possessing a valid driving licence issued by the Licencing Authority, Hoshiarpur. He also verifies this driving licence issued by Licensing Authority, Hoshiarpur and also took his driving test and found that he was an efficient driver. There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the opposite parties and hence we hold that the driver Kulbir Singh was possessing a valid driving licence when the accident took place and hence the opposite parties illegally repudiated the claim of the complianant. As the opposite parties failed to make payment of compensation and, therefore, it is a case of deficiency in service.