1 F.A.No.

: 141/2012

Date of filing :12/04/2012

Date of order :22/10/2013

MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 141 OF 2012

IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 73 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : OSMANABAD

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd

Through its Divisional Manager
Rajendra Chambers,
Aurangabad. Appellant
VERSUS
Tejabai Pradeep Lokhande
R/o.Achler Tq.Lohara,
Dist.Osmanabad. Respondent.

CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mrs.Uma Bora, Hon'ble Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

Present : Adv.Shri.S.S.Kundkar for the appellant is present.

Adv.Shri.U.N.Shete for the respondent is present.

O R A L O R D E R

Per Mrs.Uma Bora, Hon`ble Member.

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd though its

Divisional Manager Aurangabad challenges in this appeal judgment
and order passed by the Dist. Forum Osmanabad on 12/03/2012 in
CC.No.73/2011 We heard both the counsel finally at the stage of
admission and decided the appeal.

2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are as under.

Complainant Smt.Tejabai Pradeep Lokhande resident of Achler
Tq.Lohara Dist. Osmanabad is wife of deceased Shri. Pradeep
Lokhande. Deceased Pradeep Lokhande was having motorcycle
bearing No. MH25-J-3733. Said motorcycle was insured with
appellant Insurance Company for owner driver, for the sum insured
of Rs 1,00,000/-. Said policy was for the period from 11/04/2005 to
 2 F.A.No.: 141/2012

10/04/2006. On 20/09/2005 while travelling on the motorcycle said

was skidded and Shri. Pradeep Lokhande died on 20/09/2005.
Therefore, complainant preferred the claim with Insurance Company.
Said claim was repudiated by Insurance Company on 06/06/2007
on the ground that deceased was not having valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, complainant
approached to Dist. Forum by demanding insurance amount of Rs
1,00,000/-, Rs 25,000/- for mental agony and Rs 2000/- for the cost
of the complaint.

3. Opponent appeared before the Dist. Forum and resisted the

claim on the ground that the alleged driving licence produced by the
complainant before the Dist. Forum is fake and forged. To prove the
said fact the appellant produced the letter of Regional Transport
Officer of Raichur dated 25/05/2007. According to which the licence
produced on record by the complainant was not issued by the said
office.

4. After hearing both the parties Dist. Forum partly allowed the
complaint and directed appellant to pay Rs 1,00,000/- with @ 9 %
p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim and Rs 2000/- for the cost
of the complaint.

5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original opponent

came in appeal. Adv.S.G.Chapalgaonkar appeared for the appellant
and Adv.U.N.shete appeared for the respondent. During pendency of
appeal this Commission directed appellant to produce the affidavit
about the genuineness of the letter issued by Regional Transport
Office, Raichur. Accordingly, appellant filed affidavit of Shri. Jitendra
Hardar. It is submitted by Adv. Kundkar holding for Adv.
Chapalgaonkar that as deceased was not having valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident claim of complainant rightly
repudiated by the Insurance Company. To support of his contention
 3 F.A.No.: 141/2012

he relied on United India Insurance Company Ltd- V/s – Davinder

Singh reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 329. It is held by
Appex Court that renewal of forged licence would not fasten any
liability on insurer to indemnify owner and same does not amount to
deficiency in service.

6. Adv.Shri.Shete submitted that the complainant produced the

driving licence on record which was legal and valid as appellant did
not file affidavit of RTO officer who issued the letter about
genuineness of driving licence. It is further submitted by Adv. Shete
that Dist. Forum rightly appreciated the facts and evidence while
allowing the complaint. Hence, appeal be dismissed. In support of his
contention Adv.Shri.Shete relied on Amalendu Sahoo – V/s-
Oriengal Insurance Company Ltd reported in II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC).
It is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if terms of policy violated,
settlement of claim on non standard basis must be done.

7. We heard both the counsel and perused the record.

Complainant produced licence on the record. Said was disputed by
the appellant before the Dist. Forum. For that purpose appellant
produced the letter issued by RTO Officer, Raichur mentioning therein
that said licence was not issued by their office. Dist.Forum accepted
said fact and held that at the time of accident deceased Shri. Pradeep
Lokhande was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence.
Even then Forum allowed the complaint by ignoring said fact.

8. Sec. 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act casts an obligation on a driver to

hold effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to
drive Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to
prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles
mentioning in Sub-section 2 of the said Section In the present case,
the licence produced on record is seems to be fake or forged such
licence is as good as no licence in the eyes of law. In New India
 4 F.A.No.: 141/2012

Assurance Company Ltd – V/s- Kamala reported in 2004 AIR SCW

663, it is observed by Apex Court. As a point of law we have no
manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit
stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with
or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only
empowers any licensing authority to renew a driving licence issued
under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry.

9. In our view as the driving licence produced by the complainant

on record is fake and forge licence appellant insurance company is
not at all liable to indemnify the complainant. The claim of
complainant has rightly repudiated by the insurance company, as
insured was not posse
ssing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. This is
a fundamental breach hence there is no question of settlement of
claim on non standard basis. The authority relied by Adv. Shete is not
at all applicable to the present case. The claim can be decided under
non standard basis where terms and condition of the policy are
violated. In our view as per law no citizen can drive the vehicle
without having licence to drive the same. Dist. Forum though held
that deceased was not possessing valid and effective licence
committed error in allowing the complaint. Hence, the following order.

O R D E R

1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist.
Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.

K.B.Gawali Mrs.Uma Bora S.M.Shembole

Member Member Presiding Judicial Member
Patil A.H.
 5 F.A.No.: 141/2012

Steno H.G.