UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BIRBAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Swaraj Mazda Pick Up Van No.4794 of the complainant met with an accident. The vehicle was damaged. DDR was got entered in the police station. Complainant spent an amount of Rs.46,048.56 on the repair of the vehicle. He lodged the claim with the opposite party, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , G. T. Road, Phagwara through its Branch Manager. His claim was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the driver of the Pick Up Van No.4794 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the District Forum) allowed the complaint by holding that the opposite party had not been able to prove that the driver of the Pick Up Van was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The main plea of the opposite party before the District Forum was that they got conducted inquiry through their Investigator that licence No.63841-C-1986 was fake. But it was found that this licence did not belong to the driver of the Pick-Up-Van and it belonged to someone else. Again, the opposite party got another licence No.6384/c verified from their Investigator. Even that licence also did not belong to the driver of the Pick-Up-Van in question. The licence of the driver, who was driving the Pick-Up-Van at the relevant period is No.6324 and this licence was not got investigated by the complainant and thus according to the assertions made in the complaint and affidavit filed with the complainant, that licence No.6324 only belongs to the driver of the Pick-Up-Van. The fact that licence No.6324 belongs to the driver of the Pick-Up-Van was not denied by the opposite party in their written statement. At much later stage, the opposite party stated before the District Forum that in fact this licence No.6324 remained with the complainant and thus it could not be got verified as to whether it was fake licence or not. The District Forum held on the basis of the record that this licence No.6324 was handed over by the complainant to the opposite party and remained in their possession. It was ultimately held by the District Forum that the licence of the driver, who was driving the Pick-Up-Van, was genuine and not fake.

(3.) After going through the record of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The complainant has specifically mentioned in para No.7 of his complaint that his original driving licence was kept with the Insurance Company. In his affidavit filed before the District Forum also the complainant has specifically mentioned that the original driving licence was kept with the Insurance Company. These averments were not denied by the opposite party. It was merely stated at a later stage before the District Forum that the original licence remained with the complainant. This assertion of the opposite party made at a later stage and that also without being fortified by way of affidavit on record cannot be relied upon. It is, thus, found as a fact that the original licence of the complainant remained with the Insurance Company but the Insurance Comany i. e. the opposite party never got this licence verified from any authority as to whether it was fake or a genuine licence. The opposite party got two other licences verified, which did not belong to the driver of the complainant party, which are of no consequence as far as the driving licence of the driver of the Pick-Up-Van No.4794 is concerned. Two opportunities were given to the appellant in appeal also to verify about the genuineness of the driving licence No.6324, but still these opportunities could not be utilised by the appellant. Thus, it can safely be held that the licence of the driver of the Pick-Up-Van was not fake as alleged by the opposite parties. In view of the definite averment made by the complainant, which is fortified in his affidavit that the driver of the Pick-Up-Van was having a valid driving licence at the time of driving the vehicle. We do not find any merit in the appeal of the Insurance Company, which is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs.500/-.