ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. The dispute involved in this case falls in narrow compass i.e., whether the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of an accident on 26.10.1996 did have an effective driving licence. Mr. Harpal Singh obtained a comprehensive insurance policy for his truck No. PB-03 C-5405 from National Insurance Company for the period from 26.9.1996 to 25.9.1997. The truck was involved in an accident with jeep on 26.10.1996 and was damaged. The complainant filed a claim with the Insurance Company for Rs. 76,080. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 29.7.1997 stating that the driving licence of Mr. Bikkar Singh, driver at the time of the accident was found to be fake. Aggrieved by the decision of Insurance Company, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum claiming Rs. 76,080 as damages to the truck, Rs. 1 lac as compensation and Rs. 4,000 as costs. The District Forum holding the driving licence to be fake, dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied by the order of District Forum. Bathinda, Mr. Harpal Singh filed appeal before the Punjab State Disputes Redressal Commission. The State Commission held that driving licence was validly renewed and was in force at the time of the accident and the repudiation by the Insurance Company was thus invalid. Accordingly, complaint was allowed with direction to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 76,000 with 12% interest per annum thereon w.e.f. 3.2.1997 till payment along with Rs. 2,000 as costs of litigation. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dated 5.5.1999, the Insurance Company has come up in revision.
2. In this case the original driving licence was issued in the year 1999 which was held as fake by the District Forum as there was no licence issued in the name of Mr. Bikkar Singh. The driving licence of Mr. Bikkar Singh shows that it was validly renewed for the period 1992-95 and further for the period 1995-98 by the D.T.O.ss Bathinda. The accident had taken place on 26.10.1996. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors. I , the Apex Court held that:
When an owner is hiring a driver he will 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 Section 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 or had notice that the license was fake and still permitted that person to drive.
3. In R.P. No. 2166/2003-Harbhajan Lal v. National Insurance Company Ltd. this commission held that:
In this case original licence on the basis whereof licence was renewed by RTO, Raipur was fake, it having not been issued by the RTO Kanpur. Consedering the ratio in Kamala’s case (supra) and also latter decision in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors. , 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 led any evidence to prove that the driving licence possessed by said Sanjeev Kumar was fake to the knowledge of petitioner at the time she engaged him as driver.
4. In view of the ratio of said two decisions, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in this order passed by Punjab State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.