State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Lt. Col. Hemant Belwal And Another on 19 April, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 224 / 2014
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through Branch Manager
Uniyal Niketan, Mall Road, Nainital (Uttarakhand)
Through National Insurance Company's Authorized Signatory
Regional Office, Rajpur Road, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Ltd. Col. Hemant Belwal S/o Sh. Shrikrishan Belwal
R/o Mallital, Bhimtal, District Nainital
.......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. R.T.O., Haldwani
Kusumkhera Road, District Haldwani
.......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Sumit Kumar Yadav, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 19/04/2017
ORDER
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the opposite party No. 1-Insurance Company against the order dated 08.09.2014 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 63 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party No. 1- Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,24,366/- towards compensation against the vehicle No. UK04-G-2526 to the complainant, within one month from the date of order, failing which the opposite party No. 1-Insurance 2 Company shall also pay interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of order till the date of actual payment to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint are that the complainant Lt. Col. Hemant Belwal is the registered owner of the vehicle Tata Safari bearing registration No. UK04-G-2526 which was insured with the opposite party for a period from 08.01.2011 to 07.01.2012. The said vehicle met with an accident on 12.01.2011. Insurance Company was informed for the said accident and on the direction of the opposite party, the said accidented vehicle was brought to Gola Ganpati Motors, Haldwani to repair the vehicle and an estimate of Rs. 2,00,384/- was made as repair charges of the said vehicle. The opposite party was requested to pay the claim amount, but the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. After repudiation of the claim, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital.
3. The opposite party-Insurance Company has filed written statement before the District Forum and has pleaded that the vehicle in question bearing registration No. UK04-G-2526 is a private car and falls within the class of LMV as per Motor Vehicle Act, which has been insured by the answering opposite party as private car in favour of the complainant. The answering opposite party repudiated the claim as per the norms and conditions of the insurance policy, because the driver Sh. Sachin Belwal does not hold the valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. On receiving information from the complainant with regard to the damage on his vehicle, the answering opposite party has immediately taken the action and deputed Surveyor, who inspected the vehicle in question at repair shop at Gola Ganpati Motors, Haldwani and submitted his report on 18.02.2011 together with motor re-inspection report in which he assessed the net loss to the vehicle payable amount at Rs. 1,65,821.49ps. only 3 subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the request of answering opposite party, the complainant has submitted driving license of the driver-Sh. Sachin Belwal (who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident) issued by the Transport Department, Haldwani and other relevant papers of the vehicle, which were verified by the answering opposite party. On verification of the papers, the answering opposite party found that at the time of accident, Sh. Sachin Belwal holds driving license to drive only motorcycle, which is effective since 13.10.1997 to 12.10.2017, but he does not hold valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. Hence, it is a breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and driver clause of the insurance company, which read as under
"Any person including insured provided that a person driving holding an effective driving license at the time of accident."
Therefore, the complainant's claim was repudiated as per the norms and conditions of the insurance policy.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 08.09.2014 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company- appellant has filed the present appeal.
5. We have heard Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh. Sumit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. We have also gone through the entire record of the District Forum and have also perused the material placed on record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Commission that the person who was drying the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license, which was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The appellant has, thus, rightly repudiated the complainant's claim. The claim was repudiated 4 by a speaking order after thorough investigation and the reasons are cogent and valid. On investigation it was found that the driver was not authorized to drive motor car and, thus, the claim of the respondent was rightly repudiated.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has apprised the Commission that driver-Sachin Belwal had applied for valid driving license to drive all types of vehicles, i.e. LMV. The respondent has filed an application under Right To Information Act, 2005 to know the type of license he applied for. Respondent got reply from R.T.O. Department that information is very old and the documents were weeded out. So that at the time of accident, the driver, who was driving the vehicle, was having a valid driving license.
8. The vehicle in question was a Tata Safari. Sh. Sachin Belwal, driver of the vehicle was issued a driving license to drive only motorcycle and the same was issued on 13.10.1997 and it was valid till 12.10.2017. After perusal of the driving license filed by respondent No. 1 (paper No. 11/1 on the District Forum's record), it is evident that the driving license is fake as it clearly shows that endorsement done on driving license by Photoshop. The report of R.T.O., Haldwani also support fakeness of driving license of the driver, stating that Sachin Belwal, driving license No. 43842/K/1997 was issued to drive motor cycle only. The District Forum has overlooked this fact that the driver was not having a valid driving license to drive four- wheeler. According to Motor Vehicle Act and Driving License Clause of the Insurance Policy:- 'any person including insured that a person-driver holding an effective driving license at the time of accident'. In the case of IV (2010) CPJ 38 (SC); Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mils (P) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble National Commission:-
5a) Hem Raj vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; III (2016) CPJ 54 (NC).
b) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ram Krishan; IV (2016) CPJ 279 (NC).
c) Tirupati Transport Corporation vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited; I (2016) CPJ 12 (NC).
d) Alok Waghe vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.; III (2014) CPJ 508 (NC).
In the case of Hem Raj vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that the driving license was fake. Insurance policy was issued with a rider that vehicle shall be driven by a person who is having a valid driving license. At the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the driver's clause.
Repudiation justified. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ram Krishan (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has held that driving license is invalid. Light Transport Vehicle (LTV) was being driven by driver who did not have a valid driving license to drive a LTV. This is not a technical violation, but a material violation. This is not a case of theft, but an accident. Repudiation justified. In the case of Tirupati Transport Corporation vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has observed that driving license was invalid. Violation of policy conditions. Insurance company is not liable to reimburse the petitioner for damage caused to vehicle, if it is found that driver of vehicle did not possess valid license at the time of accident. Repudiation justified.
All the above citations are fully applicable in the present case. In the instant case, the vehicle was driven by driver, who did not have a valid driving license to drive LMV as well as driving license, produced in the appeal, was fake.
10. In the case of Alok Waghe vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble National Commission has observed that the 6 District Forum allowed the complaint on non-standard basis (75%). As the driver was not disqualified from driving the vehicle at the time of accident, but merely because license was not renewed on the date of accident. But in the present case, the complaint could not be allowed on non-standard basis (75%), as the driver was not qualified to drive such type of vehicle. Cases United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Arvind Kumar; III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sansar Chand; III (2010) CPJ 256 (NC) are also discussed in this citation. The Hon'ble National Commission has held that if driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving license to drive that particular type of vehicle at the time of accident, Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse damages to the vehicle. This citation is also applicable in the instant case. The driver in the present case was authorised to drive only motorcycle, not four-wheeler.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; II (2010) CPJ 9 (SC). Perusal of the aforesaid citation, it clearly reveals that in case any of the employee had approached the complainant to hand over the aforesaid vehicle for few hours for urgent use. The complainant handed over the aforesaid vehicle by way of a good gesture. The vehicle met with an accident and in such circumstances 75% claim was allowed on non-standard basis. This citation does not help the complainant-respondent No. 1 as the vehicle was driven for long time by a person who doesn't possess a valid driving license at the time of accident. No urgency seems in the present case to violate the terms and conditions of the policy.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order, which 7 cannot legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal is fit to be allowed.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2014 passed by the District Forum, Nainital is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 63 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Amount deposited by the appellant be released in appellant's favour.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI)