UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. JASWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the order of the District Forum, Nawanshahr dated 8.1.2007 by which the complaint of the complainant (respondent herein) was allowed in the following terms: "8. In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite parties are required to make payment of a sum of Rs.1,39,000 to the complainant within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the complainant would be entitled to get interest @ 9% p. a. from the date of the complaint till payment. The opposite parties should also make payment of a sum of Rs.500 as costs of the proceedings. A copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs and, thereafter, the file be properly arranged, tagged, paged and then consigned to the record room. "

(2.) The precise objection of the Insurance Company to the claim filed by the complainant was that the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time did not hold a valid driving licence. This was found so by the Investigator after getting the particulars of the licence verified that in fact the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time held a fake driving licence. The driver of the vehicle in question had been employed by the complainant Jaswinder Singh. We had an occasion to consider similar point in the case reported as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Mehardeen, in which we had observed as under: "learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the original fake licence would not become valid by a genuine renewal. The licence, which is initially fake, would remain fake despite genuine renewal thereof. He cited a judgment of the Apex Court in National India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Kamla and Others,2001 3 SLT 150, in support of his argument. Learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant could not cited any other authority of the Apex Court taking a different view in the matter. He, however, argued that when an owner hires a driver and has checked the driver's licence which, on the face of it, looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a Competent Authority or not and, after testing the driving skill of the driver to be engaged, if he finds that the driver is competent to drive, he would hire his services. Conse-quently, he argued that even if it is held that the original licence was fake, which had been validly renewed and the hirer, i. e. complainant Mehardeen, was satisfied regarding the genuineness of the driving licence, the claim could not have been repudiated by company. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Lehru and Others, 2003 AIR(SC) 1292, wherein it was observed as under: 'when an owner is hiring a driver he will, therefore, have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a Competent Authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that Insurance Companies expect owners to make inquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Sec.149 (2) (a) (ii ). The Insurance Company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the Insurance Company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware of or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. ' "

(3.) In view of the aforesaid judgment, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum when it allowed the complaint.