Smt. Kamlesh Rai                           ..   Petitioner 
                Vs
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.        ...  Respondent

BEFORE : Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta, Presiding Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member.

Dated: 30th August 2004

JUSTICE K.S.GUPTA, MEMBER

     This revision is directed against the order dated 30-3-2001 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Haryana allowing appeal against the order dated 29-4-1999 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.

     Petitioner was the owner of a metador having registration no. DL-4CE-4203 and she got it insured with the respondent/opposite party for the period from 16-12-1995 to 15-12-1996. Metador met with an accident on 20-2-1996 resulting into damaged allegedly of Rs. 80,000. At the time of accident it was being driven by Sanjeev Kumar. On being intimated regarding accident, the respondent appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. Later on respondent repudiated the claim stating that driving license of Sanjeev Kumar was not traceable in the office of District Transport Office, Hoshiarpur. Petitioner alleged that on verification from the office of District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur it was found that driving license of Sanjeev Kumar was valid up to 9-4-1997 and same was renewed on 22-4-1997 for a further period of three years. Alleging deficiency in service the petitioner filed complaint seeking direction to the respondent to pay aforesaid amount of Rs. 80,000. Respondent contested the complaint and the main ground taken by way of preliminary objection in the written version was that Sanjeev Kumar held a bogus license at the time of accident. On analysing the evidence of the parties the District Forum found that driving license no. 661/DTO/91 had been issued in the name of one Balbeer Singh for Scooter/Motorcycle: this license was renewed for HTV in the name of Sanjeev Kumar with no. 266/RDI/93-94 on 8-4-1994 and was valid up to 5-3-1997: License was further renewed from 22-4-1997 to 21-4-2000 in the name of Sanjeev Kumar. Holding that if a fake license was validly got renewed the owner cannot be made to suffer the District Forum directed the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 80,000 with interest at 18% p.a. from 16-7-1997 and cost of Rs. 5,000. 

     In appeal filed against District Forum's order by the respondent, the plea taken was that renewal of an original fake license would not make it a valid one. Relying on the decision in C.A. No. 238 of 2001 - New India Assurance Co. Vs Kamala, decided on 27-3-2001 by the Supreme Court, the State Commission allowed appeal and dismissed the complaint. It is this order which is being assailed in this revision petition.

     We have heard Shri Bharat Singh for petitioner and Shri Vishnu Mehra for respondent - Insurance Company. 

     Issue similar to that involved in this revision, was also involved in R.P. No. 2166 of 2003 - Harbhajan Lal Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. decided by this Commission on 29-9-2003. In that case, original license on the basis whereof license was renewed by RTO, Raipur, was fake, it having not been issued by RTO, Kanpur. Considering the ratio in Kamala's case (supra) and also latter decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lehru & Ors., JT (2003) 2 S.C. 595, this Commission held the Insurance Company deficient in service in repudiating the claim observing that petitioner did not have the knowledge that driving license of Kuldeep Singh, driver was fake. In present case, the respondent had not lead any evidence to prove that the driving license possessed by said Sanjeev Kumar was fake to the knowledge of petitioner at the time she engaged him as driver. Case is fully covered by Harbhajan Lal's case and revision petition, thus deserves to be accepted and order of District Forum restored reducing the rate of interest to 9% from 18% p.a. which seems to be on higher side.

     Accordingly, while allowing revision petition, the order dated 30-3-2001 is set aside and that of District Forum dated 29-4-1999 restored with modifications in rate of interest as noticed in preceding para of the order. No order as to cost.