Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1030 (GAU)

Mahamaya Nath v. Oriental Insurance Company

2017-08-02

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 being the Insurance Company. The respondent No.2 being the permanent Lok Adalat, which is a judicial authority, is not required to be represented. 2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle of brand Mahindra Max bearing registration No.AS-10-4622. The said vehicle was duly insured with the respondent Insurance Company, bearing Policy No.31/2007/1170. On 12.08.2006 at about 2.00 p.m., while the vehicle of the petitioner was proceeding from Patherkandi to Karimganj Town on the National Highway 44, it met with an accident near Kanishail-Powamara Tri Junction in the district of Karimganj. The accident had occurred due to some mechanical fault of the vehicle and in spite of best effort of the driver, the accident could not be averted. Consequent thereof, Karimganj Police Station Case No.363/2006 was registered. The vehicle of the petitioner had sustained certain damages in the said accident and accordingly, the petitioner had to incur an expenditure of Rs.1,25,000/- for repairing of the vehicle. Thereafter, the petitioner made a claim for payment of the aforesaid amount under the policy, which she had taken from the respondent Insurance Company. Along with the claim, the required documents like registration book, fitness certificate, pollution control certificate, MVI report, particulars of police case, driving license of the driver etc were also produced. 3. By a letter dated 09.03.2007, the respondent Insurance Company required the petitioner to submit photocopy of both the original as well as the renewed driving license of the driver. Accordingly, the petitioner by the letter dated 02.03.2007 had enclosed the photocopy of the driving license of the driver bearing License No.F/19208/C which was issued from the office of the District Transport Office (DTO), Silchar. As regards the old driving license, the petitioner stated that the same was surrendered at the time of renewal and therefore, it was not possible to submit a copy of the same. 4. By a letter of 29.03.2007, the Insurance Company writes to the petitioner informing that on a verification being made by the concerned authority, it was revealed that the original driving license was in the name of one Manik Khandakar and not in the name of Karan Singh, who was said to be the driver of the vehicle. 4. By a letter of 29.03.2007, the Insurance Company writes to the petitioner informing that on a verification being made by the concerned authority, it was revealed that the original driving license was in the name of one Manik Khandakar and not in the name of Karan Singh, who was said to be the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner subsequently issued a legal notice dated 28.12.2007 and also filed a claim petition before the Permanent Lok-Adalat, Karimganj, who is a authority constituted u/s 22(B) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 6. The claim of the petitioner was registered as PLA No.07/2008. As against the stand of the respondent authorities that the original driving license was in the name of one Manik Khandakar and not in the name of Karan Singh being the driver, the petitioner had taken a stand that the respondent Insurance Company had not provided the petitioner with a copy of the report on the basis of which such stand had been taken. 7. Be that as it may, based on the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, the Permanent Lok-Adalat by its judgment and order dated 23.12.2009 had rejected the claim of the petitioner for repudiating her claim under the Insurance Policy. As per the said judgment dated 23.12.2009, the reason for which the claim of the petitioner was rejected was that the original driving license issued by the DTO, Kamrup was in the name of one Manik Khandakar and not in the name of Karan Singh, who was in fact driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the Permanent Lok-Adalat was of the view that the owner of the vehicle is required to prove that the owner had employed a driver having a valid license and in case of renewal of driving license if the original driving license was in the name of different person, the subsequent issuance of driving license by authority will not make the renewed driving license genuine. Accordingly, the Permanent Lok-Adalat had taken the view that the renewed driving license of the driver produced by the petitioner was a fake license. 8. Accordingly, the Permanent Lok-Adalat had taken the view that the renewed driving license of the driver produced by the petitioner was a fake license. 8. It is noticed that the Permanent Lok-Adalat had not arrived at any conclusion as to whether the said renewed driving license of the driver of the petitioner was genuinely issued by the appropriate authority of the DTO, Silchar or the same license had been obtained by the driver of the petitioner through manipulation. 9. Unless a license had not been genuinely issued by the DTO, Silchar, the said license cannot be called to be a fake license. In order for a license to be called fake, it is necessary that the license had been procured from any other source other than the appropriate source being the DTO, Silchar. 10. Merely because the renewed driving license of the driver had contained a reference of the earlier driving license and such reference of the earlier driving license does not pertain to the concerned driver, the same by itself would not be a conclusive enough to conclude that the renewed driving license of the driver of the petitioner was a fake driving license. 11. In such view of the matter and as also agreed to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Insurance Company, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the matter is remanded back to the Permanent Lok-Adalat for a proper adjudication as to whether the renewed driving license of the driver of the petitioner as submitted before the Permanent Lok-Adalat was genuinely issued by the authority of the DTO, Silchar or not. 12. Accordingly, on being remanded, the Permanent Lok-Adalat shall take an exercise to obtain the required evidence from the parties, if necessary by examining the appropriate authority in the office of the DTO, Silchar and also by verifying the original records as to whether the renewed license issued to the driver of the petitioner Karan Singh had been genuinely issued or the same is a manufactured or manipulated one. Depending upon the outcome of such enquiry, the Permanent Lok-Adalat would pass its order in the given case. 13. Let the LCR be send back immediately. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the Permanent Lok-Adalat on 01.09.2017. 15. Depending upon the outcome of such enquiry, the Permanent Lok-Adalat would pass its order in the given case. 13. Let the LCR be send back immediately. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the Permanent Lok-Adalat on 01.09.2017. 15. As the matter has been remanded back for fresh adjudication by taking appropriate evidence as indicated above, the earlier judgment and order dated 23.12.2009 of the Permanent Lok-Adalat, Karimganj in PLA Case No.07/2008 is hereby set aside. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.