This revision petition arises out of the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the DCDRC Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission) whereby the complaint of the respondent/complainant has been allowed for the total damage of the vehicle to be indemnified in terms of the policy acquired from the petitioner/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The order of the District Commission was taken up by the petitioner in appeal before the SCDRC Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 128 of 2022 that has been dismissed on 13.08.2024 upholding the order of the District Commission. The vehicle insured was a new Force Maxi Cab Traveller (12)D of 2014 and was insured with the petitioner for the duration 14.01.2014 to 13.01.2015. The petitioner comes up assailing both the orders on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by the driver Hem Raj when the accident occurred on 11.10.2014 who was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence. It is urged that both the Fora below have manifestly erred by misconstruing the Notification issued by the Government of Nagaland dated 01.08.2014 which declares that all licences purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland in a booklet form after 30.10.2009 are neither genuine nor valid unless such driving licences have been obtained digitally in the form of a smart card. The Notification recites that this exercise is to be completed before 01.12.2014 where-after driving licences other than smart card shall be treated as cancelled. The Notification has been issued by the Transport Commissioner of Nagaland in exercise of powers under Section 19(1)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company, has vehemently argued that once the said statutory Notification is in place, the licence as projected by the owner to be possessed by the driver on the date of the accident i.e. on 11.10.2014 was neither a valid nor genuine driving licence and hence the claim was rightly repudiated. This repudiation dated 18.03.2016 led to the filing of the complaint being Complaint Case No. 94 of 2016 before the District Commission. After notice the matter was contested and evidence was led, including the surveyor’s report and the licence verification report, whereupon the District Commission in paragraphs 7 and 8 answered this issue as follows: “7. In this case, it is not in dispute that the complainant is owner of the vehicle in question. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle met with an accident and was totally damaged. It is also not in dispute that about accident police was informed and FIR was lodged. It is further not in dispute that the complainant gave intimation to the OP about the accident and loss to the vehicle immediately after accident. It is further not in dispute that the OP has appointed surveyor and he assessed the loss as per report placed on record. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased in the year 2014 and met with an accident in the year 2014 itself and IDV of vehicle in question was Rs.8,24,496/-. The only ground on which the claim of the complainant was repudiated is that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, because as per notification issued by the competent authority of Nagaland on 01.08.2014 all the licences w.e.f. 30.10.2009 were to be issued on smart card, but the driving licence of Hem Raj, which was issued on 15.03.2010, was not on smart card and hence, was not a genuine licence. In this regard, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Nirmala Kothari Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal Nos. 1999-2000 of 2020, decided on 04.03.2020, wherein it is held that “while hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the Insurance Company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the Insurance Company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable”. 8. In this regard, the complainant has specifically pleaded in the complaint that before employing Shri Hem Raj as driver, the complainant had seen his driving licence and took the driving test and found the driver as skilled and experienced one and the driving licence was found to be genuine on the fact of it. The said plea of the complainant is also corroborated from his affidavit filed in evidence. However, on behalf of the OP there is no evidence on record to establish that the complainant had knowledge that the licence of the driver is not valid and even then allowed him to drive the vehicle. Not only this, the surveyor on checking found the DL in order as produced. Therefore, as per decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the complainant has been able to prove that the driver was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Further there is nothing on record to show that the driver was informed by the licencing authority to convert the licence into smart card. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant.” The District Commission has detailed the evidence that was filed on record in paragraph 5 of the order to support its findings which is also extracted hereunder: “5. The parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. On behalf of complainant affidavit of complainant has been tendered in evidence. Copy of RC Annexure-A, Copy of policy Annexure-B, Copy of FIR Annexure-C, Copy of repudiation letter Annexure-D, Copy of ID Card for apple transportation Annexure-DA, Copy of DL Annexure-E, Copy of Permit Annexure-F, Copy of Carriage Permit Annexure-G, Copy of judgment Annexure-H, Counterfoil of Postal Order Annexure-J, Copy of application under RTI Annexure-K, Postal receipt Annexure-L, Copy of letter of DTO Zunheboto (Nagaland) Annexure-M, Envelope Annexure-N, etc. have also been filed by the complainant in support of his contentions. On behalf of OP affidavit of Mrs. Mona Bagga, has been tendered in evidence. Copy of Survey Report Annexure R-1, Verification report of DL Annexure R-2 etc. have also been filed by the OP in support of its contentions.” The State Commission affirmed the said findings giving its own reasons in paragraphs 16 to 20 which are extracted hereunder: “16. The onus to prove the factum that driving license of the driver was not valid and effective lies upon the insurance company. The insurance company has only placed on record the copy of notification/public information dated 01.08.2014 alleged to have been issued by the Government of Nagaland, Transport Commissioner, but the insurance company has not filed the affidavit of Transport Commissioner, Nagaland to prove the contents of the aforesaid public information. 17. In the absence of affidavit of the Transport Commissioner, Nagaland, no reliance can be placed upon the said public information/notification which has not been proved by the opposite party/insurance company in accordance with the law and on the basis of such document, it cannot be held that the driving licenseof the driver Hem Raj was not valid and effective license. 18. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that driver Hem Raj was informed by the licensing authority about the said public information/notification to convert his driving licence into smart card. 19. Even the surveyor in his report has specifically mentioned that on checking the driving license of driver Hem Raj, same was found in order. 20. Thus, the plea of the insurance company that at the time of accident driver Hem Raj was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question, does not seem to be correct and as such, looses its significance.” Mr. Paul has taken us through the entire pleadings and has also placed before the Bench the verification report of the driving licence and also the letter of the District Transport Officer dated 08.08.2019 that has not been filed alongwith the revision petition but was available before the District Commission. Mr. Paul urged that once it is established that the driver was not possessed of a valid driving licence, the repudiation was justified and the claim could not have been allowed by the District Commission. The same error has been committed by the State Commission, hence the revision petition deserves to be allowed. To appreciate the arguments advanced by Mr. Paul, it would be apt to reproduce the repudiation letter dated 18.03.2016 which is extracted hereunder: “Dated: 18/03/2016 Regd Withoutprejudice Sh. Sumer Rana, Village Dhar, P.O. Kotiuttrau, Tehsil Shilai, Distt. Sirmour, Nahan (H.P.)173001 Reg:Accidental claim of your vehicle No. HP-01-N-0237, Policy No. 31/13/002992, Claim No. 31/14/00154, Date of accident: 11/10/2014 __________________________________________________ Sir, Reference to the above, we may inform you that driving licence No.11577/TB/Z/2011 of driver Mr. Hem Raj has been issued from DTO Nagaland on dated 15/03/2010 and valid upto 31/08/2017 which is not on smart card. We may inform you that Motor Vehicle Deptt., Govt. Of Nagaland has issued order for public information bearing No. TC-23/MV/2007(PT-1) DT. 1.8.2014 whereby Nagaland Govt. has informed the general public that w.e.f. 30.10.2009 all driving licenses are being issued on smart card. So the Driving License of Mr. Hem Raj is not issued on smart card and as per above said order this is not genuine and we are not in a position to entertain your claim and repudiating our liability as No Claim. This is for your information please. Thanking you, Yours Faithfully, Sd/- Sr. Branch Manager” A perusal of the repudiation letter indicates that it categorically mentions the existence of the licence that was valid for the period 15.03.2010 till 31.08.2017 in the name of the deceased driver Hem Raj but was not on smart card. However, on the basis of the Notification dated 01.08.2014 issued by the Nagaland Government the said licence was treated as invalid as it was not on a smart card and therefore the same is not genuine. The repudiation letter accordingly rejects the claim. To further appreciate the argument, a copy of the surveyor’s report that has been filed on record as Annexure P-5 and is dated 09.02.2015, under the column ‘Driver’s Particulars’ recites as follows: “Driver’s Particulars Name of Driver : SH. HEM RAJ S/O KANSHU RAM-Employed Driver Driving License No. : 11577/TV/2011 Date of Issue : 15.03.2010 Valid Upto : 31.08.2017 Issuing Authority : ZUNHABETO (NAGALAND) Type of License : Permanent Type of Vehicle Allowed to Drive : MC/LMV Endorsement : ENDORSEDFOR HTV, HPVw.e.f 01-08-2011 ANDBADGENO. 3817/PSV/Z/2011 Driving License Verified: Yes D.L. CHECKED AND FOUND IN ORDER AS PRODUCED.” A perusal of the surveyor’s report demonstrates that the driving licence was checked and verified and was in order as produced. The assessment of the loss was made thereafter and then the claim was repudiated as indicated above. Mr. Paul also pointed out that a spot survey had also been conducted which is also on record. Thus, there was no dispute about the ownership of the vehicle, the accident and its total damage, the intimation to the Police, lodging of the FIR and also the intimation to the Insurance Company immediately following the accident. It is also not disputed that a surveyor was appointed who tendered his report in respect of the claim, which was almost a new vehicle purchased in the year 2014, the insured value whereof was Rs.8,24,496/-. The District Commission recorded a finding that the surveyor had found the driving licence in order as produced and even otherwise the owner of the vehicle had verified the licence at the time of the engagement of the driver who was possessed of the said driving licence. There is yet another document that has been produced by Mr. Paul, namely, an order passed by the competent court under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 in Case No. 2/2 of 2014 lodged by the widow of the driver, where the owner of the vehicle Sumer Rana and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. were arrayed as respondents. The issue of the validity of the driving licence of the driver was considered while deciding issue no.1. Paragraph 7 of the said order is extracted hereunder: “7. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the mother of deceased, Hem Raj who was employed as driver with respondent no.1 on his Trax Traveler No. HP-01N-0237 for Rs.7500/- p.m. Accordingly to the petitioner, she was fully dependent upon the deceased, Hem Raj. According to the petitioner on dated 11.10.2014 when the deceased Hem Raj was engaged by respondent no.1 for carrying passengers from Timbi to Millah and when he was coming back after dropping the the passengers at Millah, he met with an accident at Binda Khud. The vehicle fell down about 300 meters in a deep Khud. Deceased, Hem Raj sustained fatal injuries resulting into his death. He was declared dead when taken to hospital at C.H.C. … The matter was also reported to police on which FIR No. 41/2014 was registered. Accordingly to the petitioner at the time of driving of the vehicle, the deceased was having valid driving license and the accident occurred during the course of his employment with respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 in his reply as well as in his statement when appeared as RW-1 admitted that he had employed deceased, Hem Raj as his driver in Trax Traveler No. HP-01N-0237. He also admitted that when he employed deceased, Hem Raj as driver, he had also seen his driving license and he had also taken a test drive of the deceased, Hem Raj and after satisfying himself that he was an expert driver, he had engaged him as his driver on the aforesaid vehicle. He also admitted that the deceased died on dated 11.10.2014 when he met with an accident at Binda Khud while coming back after dropping the passengers at Millah in his vehicle Trax Traveler No. HP-01N-0237. Hence, there is no dispute that the deceased, Hem Raj was engaged as driver by respondent no.1 in his aforesaid … and he died during the course of employment. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of petitioner.” The Insurance Company through their Investigator Mr. M.L. Vaish seems to have made an enquiry from the office of the District Transport Officer concerned about the said driving licence to which a reply was given on 28.02.2017 that the record of such driving licence is not found in their office and therefore they are unable to provide any information or verify the genuineness of the same. The said reply is extracted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT ZUNHEBOTO: NAGALAND No. DTO-Z/RTI/2016-17 389 Dated the To, Shri, M.L. Vaish 42-B Tagore Garden Ambala Cantt Haryana-133001 Sub:- VERIFICATION OF DRIVING LICENSE UNDER RTI ACT 2005 Sir, With reference to your letter No. MLV/INV/08/17 Date 19-01-2017, on the subject cited above, I have the honor to inform you that the Driving License No. 11577/TV/Z/2011, is not found in our office record. Therefore, I convey our inability to provide any information or to verify the genuineness of the said Driving License. This is for your kind information and necessary action. Yours faithfully Sd/- District Transport Officer Zunheboto:Nagaland” The same information was reiterated in the reply given to the Insurance Company through its lawyer by the District Transport Officer on 08.08.2019. However, it deserves to be noted that the surveyor himself had verified the licence and had reported that it was in order. The repudiation letter dated 18.03.2016 records that the driving licence had been issued which was valid for the period 15.03.2010 upto 31.08.2017 and is evident from the same extracted hereinabove, but relying on the Notification dated 01.08.2014 the claim was repudiated. In this regard, the document which needs reference is the Notification dated 01.08.2024 which is the sheet anchor of the argument of Mr. Paul. The said Notification is extracted hereunder: "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER KOHIMA-797001, NAGALAND. No. TC-23/MV/2007(PT-1) Dt. Kohima, the 1st Aug., 2014 PUBLIC INFORMATION Driving License is issued under the central Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made there under authorizing the holder to drive particular class of vehicle. Of late Driving, license has gained much more importance than to an authorization to drive a vehicle. It is now an officially accepted document for identity proof address proof by government authorities and authorities such as airlines, banks etc. With the multi functional importance that it has gained there is a need for the enforcing agencies to meticulously scrutinize the genuineness of Licenses so as to prevent its misuse that may compromise security. Driving License is issued on Smart Card through the national software "SARATHI" from 30th October 2009 in the State. All licenses issued on Sarathi can be viewed/verified through the national portal www.sarathi.nic.in. Issue of driving license on booklet has been discontinued in the State after Smart Card has been introduced. Thus any License purported to have been issued by any authority in Nagaland on Booklet Form after 30th October 2009 is not genuine. Enforcing agencies have detected large number of fake Driving Licenses being used in the state. This has caused serious concern not only to road safety but criminal activities. With a view to authenticate the genuine Driving Licenses it is hereby notified that all Driving License holders having the Booklet or on any manual formats other than Smart Card must report to the office where they have been issued for the purpose of digitizing their data and subsequent issue in Smart Card format. This must be completed before 1st December 2014 after which Driving Licenses other than Smart Card shall he treated as cancelled. This is issued in the interest of public safety and in exercise of the authority conferred under section 19 (1) (e) of the M.V. Act. 1988. Sd/- H. ACHUMI (Transport Commissioner)” A perusal thereof indicates that the issuance of driving licences in a booklet form was stated to have been discontinued. This Notification is of 01.08.2014 whereas the driving licence to the driver in the instant case was issued on 15.03.2010 which was a renewal of the old driving licence. The driving licence and the endorsement thereon are extracted hereunder: 
A perusal of the said driving licence indicates that it has been issued by the District Transport Officer in 2010 which is obviously prior to the Notification dated 01.08.2014. The effect of the Notification is that if such a licence in a booklet form has been issued after 30.10.2009, the same shall not be treated as genuine, as for authentication of such licences they have to be converted with complete data in digital form and issued as a smart card by the date mentioned in the Notification. Thus, a smart card format was made compulsory under the said Notification dated 01.08.2014 which it states was made effective from 30.10.2009. Nonetheless, the last paragraph of the said Notification recites that where such booklet form licences have been issued, they should be reported for being digitized which exercise must be completed before 01.12.2014. This therefore does not reflect an automatic cancellation. The driving licence of the driver was issued in 2010 but unfortunately the accident occurred on 11.10.2014 which is after the issuance of the said Notification but before the expiry date of getting the licence digitized in a smart card format i.e. 01.12.2014. Unfortunately the driver also died in the accident in Himachal Pradesh. Needless to say that the driving licence stood terminated with the death of the driver and therefore there was no occasion to get the said booklet form licence digitized or converted into smart card form after the death of the driver which could have been possibly done upto 01.12.2014. As noted above, the issuance and existence of the licence could not be doubted nor is it the case of the Insurance Company that the licence was fake. To the contrary, the surveyor himself reported the licence to be in order and the repudiation letter categorically records that the licence had been issued and was valid upto 2017. The information on verification received on 28.02.2017 and quoted hereinabove proceeds as if there were no records available. This information does not seem to be convincing as the Transport Officer has simply stated that record was not available. The letter of the Transport Officer dated 28.02.2017 has not been relied on in the letter of repudiation that was issued earlier on 18.03.2016 and rather the reliance is on the Notification dated 01.08.2014. The letter dated 08.08.2019 is also a document that has been obtained very late. It is trite law that a reason not given in the repudiation letter cannot be made the basis for contest later on as held by the Apex Court in the following cases: “(i) Galada Power & Tele Communications Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 14 SCC 161; (ii) Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 19 SCC 70; and (iii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mudit Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 193.” However, a relevant fact of the letter dated 08.08.2019 which was noted by the District Commission, namely, the letter from the District Transport Officer that was filed as Annexure-M before the District Commission, the said letter has been handed over by Mr. Paul during the course of submissions alongwith the other documents and is extracted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER ZUNHEBOTO: NAGALAND No. DTO/ZBTO/RTI-05/2019-20/469 Date 08/08/19 To, Sandeep Thakur, Advocate Chamber No. 153, Court Complex, Paonta Sahid, District Sirmioue, H.P. Pincode 173025 Tel.70186045522 Sub:- VERIFICATION OF DRIVING LICENCE UNDER RTI ACT-05 Sir, With reference to the Subject cited above and vide your letter No. Nil dated: Nil, I have the honor to inform you that the Driving License No. 11577/TV/Z/2011 is not found in any of the office record. Therefore I convey our inability to provide any information or to verify the genuineness of the said Driving License as per your queries. However, it may be stated here that the old format Driving License series such as TV/Z and NTV/Z is no more valid for any legal purposes as per the directive of the Transport Commissioner’s office memorandum vide order No.: TC/MV-2/17/5966-76, dated 18th December, 2017, wherein it is stated that all Driving License in paper format should be converted to smart card by 30th April, 2018 and which was issued in supersession of its earlier notification No. TC-23/MV/2007(PT-I)/1077-88 dated 01-08-2014. Therefore the Driving License in such type of format is null/void and may be considered as invalid/cancelled. This is for your kind information and necessary action. Enclosed: As stated. Yours faithfully Sd/- District Transport Officer Public Information Officer Zunheboto: Nagaland” This information was given to the Advocate of the Insurance Company stating therein once again that the driving licence was not found in the Office record but at the same time in the second paragraph it recites that all driving licences had to be converted into a smart card format in order to treat them as genuine. This letter extends the date of such conversion upto 30.04.2018 in supersession of the earlier Notification dated 01.08.2014. It is thus evident that the Notification dated 01.08.2014 that had declared the last date for conversion as 01.12.2014 stood extended till 30.04.2018. This information however once again asserts that the driving licences in the booklet form should be treated as invalid and cancelled as it is null and void if it is not in smart card format. We have considered the submissions raised and from the aforesaid facts what comes out is that the surveyor had verified the existence of the driving licence in order. The repudiation letter dated 18.03.2016 treats it as invalid on account of the Notification dated 01.08.2014 but at the same time asserts that the licence had been issued earlier and was valid uptill 2017. As against this, the verification report as referred to above only states that this was not available in the office record and therefore the District Transport Officer was unable to provide any information or verify the same. This information therefore does not declare the licence to be fake or otherwise not having been issued. To the contrary, a perusal of the licence indicates that it had been issued earlier and was renewed that was valid uptill 2017. This stands corroborated by the survey report of the surveyor of the Insurance Company as well as by the letter of repudiation dated 18.03.2016 itself. In our considered opinion, these facts have been dealt with by the District Commission and findings recorded that have been upheld by the State Commission in appeal. The same also stands corroborated by an adjudication under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 as referred to above. Thus, the entire gamut of facts taken together confirm the findings of the Fora below which do not suffer from either any perversity, illegality or material irregularity. Mr. Paul then urged that the reliance placed by the District Commission on the judgment in the case of Nirmala Kothari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 49 is misplaced. Learned counsel submits that the law relating to third party claim cannot be applied in the case of an owner’s claim and since the complainant and claimant in the present case was the owner, he cannot be extended any such benefit. Learned counsel has urged that the decisions which apply in such cases are (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700; (ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 698; (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harbhajan Lal, Civil Appeal No. 3501 of 2004, decided on 18.09.2008. It is urged that the State Commission failed to follow the said dictum where it has been held that the other orders were applicable only in cases of third party risks and not in the present case, as such the law in the case of Nirmala Kothari (Supra) cannot be applied to. We cannot distinguish the judgment of the Apex Court where in a case of a dispute of a driving licence the owner was found entitled to the indemnification and the appeal filed by the owner was allowed. It may be mentioned that the said decision of Nirmala Kothari (Supra) was the case of an owner and in that case also the records of the licence could not be verified by the Transport Authority as being not available. In our opinion, the District Commission has not committed any illegality in applying the said law on the facts of the present case with which we agree. The order of the District Commission does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity and the order of the State Commission also does not suffer from any such infirmity, hence the impugned orders are hereby confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed. | 
