State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Bimla Devi vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 22 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.87/2010
Date of Decision: 22.05.2012
Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Shri Paras
Ram, R/o Village Ranabag, Post Office Showad, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P.
.. Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company
Limited, through its Branch Manager, Hospital
Road, Mandi
Town, District Mandi,
H.P.
Respondent
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?[1]
Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. K.R. Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs.
Seema Sood, Advocate
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2009 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby, her complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection, which she filed against respondent Oriental Insurance Company Limited, seeking issuance of a direction to it, to pay insurance claim, on account of damage caused to the vehicle, which she had got insured with the respondent, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant owned a vehicle bearing registration No.HP-01-K-7527, which was registered as a taxi. She got the vehicle insured with respondent for the period from 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2009, covering the risk of damage to the vehicle. On 31.10.2008, vehicle met with an accident and was extensively damaged.
According to the appellant, it was a case of total loss and she claimed the entire sum, for which the vehicle was insured, i.e. `2,70,000/-. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent, who deputed their Surveyor. Loss was assessed by the Surveyor at `2,44,000/-. However, appellants claim was repudiated on the ground that Bhagat Ram, who was stated to be driving the vehicle at the time of accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, inasmuch as the licence authorized him to drive only a light motor vehicle, whereas the vehicle, in question, was a light transport vehicle. Learned District Forum has accepted the aforesaid plea of the respondent and dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
4. Copy of licence of Bhagat Ram is available on record and the same is Annexure O-II. As per this copy of licence, date of issue of licence is 21.04.2003. Initially, letters and words LMV Only seem to have been written on this licence. Later-on, letters LTV appeared to have been added. Learned District Forum has observed that letters LTV have been interpolated in the licence. Respondent placed on record a report of verification of licence issued by Licensing Authority. The same is Annexure O-III. As per this report, licence was issued on 21.04.2003 for LMV only and later-on it was renewed from 25.07.2006 to 19.04.2009.
5. It is true that letters LTV written on Annexure O-II photocopy of licence are in a different hand and therefore, they can legitimately be said to have been added subsequent to the date of issue of licence, but that by itself would not lead to a presumption, not to speak of conclusion, that these letters have been interpolated. As a matter of fact, it appears that after issuance of licence copy Annexure O-II for LMV only, it was endorsed for driving light transport vehicle. Reason for our drawing such a presumption is that licence was renewed three years later for the period from 25th July, 2006 to 19th April, 2009. Endorsement of renewal is there on the licence Annexure O-II and also there is a reference to this renewal in the verification report Annexure O-III. There would not have been any occasion for renewal of licence, had it been for LMV only, because as per provision of Section 14 (2) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a licence other than for a transport vehicle is valid for 20 years in case the person, seeking licence has not attained the age of fifty years or for a period until he attains the age of fifty years.
In the present case the licence was issued on 19th April, 2003. Date of birth of licence holder is 04.12.1976. That means he was 27 years old, when licence was obtained and therefore, it was to remain valid for 20 years, if it were a licence for LMV only.
6. Section 14 (2) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act, says that in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, it shall be effective for a period of three years only. That means on expiry of three years period, renewal of licence to drive a transport vehicle is mandatory. The very fact that licence in the present case was renewed in July, 2006 or say about three years after the date of its issuance, suggests that holder of licence had been authorized to drive a transport vehicle also and that is why it required renewal. The fact that licence was renewed about three years after its issue, also suggest that letters LTV were written on this licence (even though subsequent to the date of issue of licence) lawfully by way of endorsement on the licence that holder had been authorized to drive LTV also.
7. Vehicle was insured in the sum of `2,70,000/- which was insureds declared value. Surveyor assessed its market value at `2,45,000/- and this as per report was accepted to be correct value of insured vehicle by the owner/insured. After reducing the aforesaid amount of `2,45,000/- by `1000/- on account of excess clause, surveyor recommended payment of `2,44,000/-.
8. As a result of above discussion, we accept the present appeal and set aside impugned order. Complaint filed by the appellant is allowed and respondent is directed to pay a sum of `2,44,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint to the date of payment of aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `5000/- on account of litigation cost of the complaint and this appeal.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 22, 2012.
*dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?