LexORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED versus PRITHVI RAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1S.C.R.1180 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED A v. PRITHVI RAJ (Civil Appeal No. 648 of 2008) JANUARY 24, 2008 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Motor accident - Damage to insured vehicle - Own c damage claim - Repudiated by insurer for driver of vehicle not having valid and operating driving licence - HELD: In view of categorical finding recorded by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that licensing authority had not issued any licence as claimed by driver and claimant, Insurance Company has no liability - Consumer Protection Act, 1986. D Renewal of driving licence - HELD: Renewal cannot transform a fake licence into a genuine one. The respondent filed a claim petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the State Consumer E Disputes Redressal Commission, against the appellant- Insurance Company claiming damages as a result of an aecident caused to his insured Mini Bus. The stand of the Insurance Company was that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and operating driving licence at the time F of the accident. The State Commission did not accept the plea of the complainant that there was a renewal of the driving licence, and dismissed the claim petition. On appeal, the National Commission held that though the licensing authority concerned had not issued any licence G as claimed, but in view of the fact that there was renewal <t by a different authority, the claim could not have been refused by the Insurance Company. Allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, 1180 H 1181 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the State Commission has recorded a categorical finding that the evidence on record clearly established that the licensing authority had not issued any license, as was claimed by the driver and 8 the respondent-claimant. The evidence of the Junior Assistant of the Office of the Jt. Commissioner & Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad, who produced the official records, clearly established that no driving license was issued to the person concerned in order to enable and C legally permit him to drive a motor vehicle. There was no cross-examination of the said witness. The National Commission also found that there was no defect in the finding recorded by the State Commission in this regard. D E [para 10] (1195-G, H; 1196-A, BJ National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007 (3) SCR 579 - relied on. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. 2004 (3) sec 297 - distinguished. Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2006 (8) SCALE 531; United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Lehru and Ors. 2003 (3) sec 338 - cited. 1.2 As has been held in Laxmi Narain Dhut's case*, F no licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. [para 8 (12/38)] [1195-D] *National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007 G (3) SCR 579 - relied on. 1.3 The appellant-Insurance Company has, thus, no liability. The amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order of this Court be returned to it. [para 11] H [1196-B, CJ ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED v. PRITHVI RAJ 1182 [PASAYAT, J.] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 648 A of 2008. From the final Order dated 9.3.2005 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 823 of 2003. Kishore Rawat and M.K. Dua for the Appellant. J.S. Attri for the Respondent. DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for B the parties. c 2. Leave granted. 3. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National .Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short 'the Commission') allowing the First Appeal filed D by the appellant before it (the respondent herein). He is hereinafter referred to as the complainant. Before the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the State Commission), the complainant had filed a complaint alleging that a Mini Bus owned by the complainant met with an accident during the period when the Insurance Cover/ E policy issued by the appellant-Insurance Company was in currency. The incident was reported to the Insurance Company but the claim was not settled on the ground that the Driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and operating driving license. The compl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.