RAJ KUMAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Appeal against the Order dated August 19, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana in Complaint No. 55 of 1992.

(2.) FACTS of the case may be briefly noted : The complainants are the owners of a Eicher Mitsubishi Canter � commercial vehicle which was fully insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company. On or around 12th of July, 1990, the said vehicle met with a serious accident, resulting in a virtually complete loss of the same. The complainants filed the insurance claim which was, however, rejected by the opposite party on the ground that the licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was found to be a fake one and that, therefore, the case came within the exclusionary clause of the insurance policy. Aggrieved by this, the complaint was filed before the Haryana State Commission claiming a total compensation of Rs. 7,25,000/-. Before the State Commission, the complainants submitted that they relied on Jagtar Singh, the driver with regard to the validity of his licence and had no reason to doubt him. They also sought to place reliance on the fact that subsequently, the Haryana Licencing Authority had purportedly renewed the said licence. Counsel for the complainants also placed reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Skandia Insurance Co. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Ors., [1987 (2) SCR 752]. On an examination of facts and evidence before it, the State Commission found that the licence of the said driver was originally a fake and bogus one. The Commission further referred to decision in earlier cases and held that the renewal of an originally fake licence by another Licencing Authority does not clothe it with any validity. The State Commission also held that while the observations of the Supreme Court in the M/s. Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd., would undoubtedly give a handle to the insured if the matter was in civil jurisdiction, the present case was being adjudicated within the confines of consumer jurisdiction. The main question before the State Commission was whether the Insurance Company in relying on the exclusionary clause was guilty of deficiency in service. The State Commission was of the view that the repudiation of the claim of the insured on the basis of the exclusionary clause that the driver did not hold an effective licence cannot possibly be held as a deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint while not precluding the complainants from seeking their ordinary remedy in the civil jurisdiction.