M/S. Compaq International And Anr. vs Bajaj Allianz General And Anr. Etc.

1. On 12.11.2005, one Mr. Balwant Singh was driving a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-01R-6462 with Mr. Suresh Kumar as a pillion rider in Village Kansapur, Haryana, when it met with an accident with the offending vehicle, being Car No.HR-02L- 8993. The driver of the car was one Mr. Nirmal Singh and the vehicle was owned by Compaq International, insured with Bajaj Allianz Civil Appeal Nos.2538-2539/2018 Page 1 of 11 General Insurance Company Limited. Both the driver and the pillion of the motorcycle suffered injuries. They, thus, filed two claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) claiming Rs.20 lakh (by Mr. Balwant Singh) and Rs.15 lakh (by Mr. Suresh Kumar). The two separate claim petitions were tried together and post trial in terms of the award dated 12.2.2008, an amount of Rs.45,500/- was awarded to Mr. Suresh Kumar and Rs.1,21,000/- was awarded to Mr. Balwant Singh. Since contributory negligence was found to be 50 per cent, the amount determined was reduced by 50 per cent to award the aforesaid amounts. All the respondents were made jointly and severally liable, which included the owners, the driver and the insurance company. Interest and costs were also granted.

2. The insurance company filed two separate appeals in respect of the said order. The controversy in question insofar as we are concerned arises from a doubt being cast over the driving licence of the driver, Nirmal Singh. The licence in question was proved as Exhibit RA on the summoning of PW-4, Ashok Kumar, Criminal Ahlmad of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala Cantonment where the Civil Appeal Nos.2538-2539/2018 Page 2 of 11 original driving licence had been filed and, thus, the copy was exhibited as RA in the present proceedings. As per RW-1, Nar Singh, Licence Clerk from the Registering Authority, the driving licence was valid from 27.02.1998 to 26.02.2003, i.e. for a validity period of 5 years. This was stated to be on the basis of a dispatch register (R-1). The accident having taken place on 12.11.2005, the plea advanced on behalf of the insurance company was that it was a licence, which had expired. The insurance company, thus, sought to absolve itself of the liability.

4. The present appeal was filed both by the owner and the driver.

5. Notice was issued on 31.08.2015 and interim orders were granted staying the recovery by the insurance company from the appellants.

13. A complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Compaq International, owner of the vehicle against the insurance company, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and the Licensing Authority. The cause for this complaint is the accident caused in a collision between the car of Compaq International with a motorcycle. The car was driven by one Mr. Nirmal Singh appointed by Compaq International. It is the case of Compaq Civil Appeal Nos.2538-2539/2018 Page 8 of 11 International that the driver was possessed of a valid driving license for the vehicle in question valid till 2011. In the accident, the car suffered a damage of Rs.1 lakh and Compaq International also had to expend Rs.10,000/- as transportation cost. Negligence is attributed to the services rendered by the respondents as the accident claim had not been paid. The registering authority was also roped in as a party on account of the stand sought to be taken that the driving licence was valid till 2003 while the accident happened on 12.11.2005. However, the validity period as per the driving licence was 29.04.2011. Post trial this complaint was allowed and a sum of Rs.55,887/- was awarded to Compaq International along with interest and costs.

12. We are informed that the amount already stands paid to the injured and, thus, the direction contained in the impugned order to make such a recovery from the appellants is set aside. The appeals are accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CIVIL APPEAL NO.2540 OF 2018

14. The insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which was allowed on the basis of a finding that the driver had not applied for renewal of driving licence within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry and, thus, did not hold a valid driving licence on the relevant date.

15. The appellant aggrieved by this order preferred a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which agreed with the findings of the State Commission and, in fact, went Civil Appeal Nos.2538-2539/2018 Page 9 of 11 further to even observe that the licence was apparently a forged one. Hence, the Special Leave Petition.

17. We, thus, set aside the orders of both the State Commission and the National Commission dated 14.12.2009 and 19.10.2015 respectively and remit the matter to the State Commission to be decided in accordance with law in view of our judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.2538-2539 of 2018.

18. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

March 27, 2018.

Civil Appeal Nos.2538-2539/2018 Page 11 of 11