State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through ... vs Surjit Singh Aged About 40 Years S/O Sh. ... on 27 July, 2011
F.A. No. 13 of 2006 1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 13 of 2006
Date of institution : 4.1.2006
Date of Decision : 27.7.2011
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Assistant Manager, its duly constituted
attorney, R.O. Sec-17, Chandigarh .
.....appellant.
Versus
Surjit Singh aged about 40 years S/o Sh. Ajit Singh resident of Shop no. 26, Railway
Raod, Naya Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar.
...Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 25.11.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ropar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President.
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate for
Sh. Gopal Mittal, Advocate
For the respondent : None
MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA (MEMBER):-
The respondent was the owner of the scooter bearing registration No. PB- 16B-1640 which was insured with the appellants for the period from 22.2.2004 to 21.2.2005. The said scooter met with an accident on 20.2.2005 while it was being driven by the respondent. D.D.R. No. 13 dated 21.2.2005 was got recorded at the Police Post Naya Nangal regarding the incident. Information was given to the appellants who appointed their surveyor namely P.R. Parmod Kumar who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 4340/-. The respondent spent a sum of Rs. 6687/- from his pocket for the repair of the said scooter for which he preferred the claim before the appellants which was however repudiated by the appellants vide letter dated 31.3.2005. Hence the complaint for the recovery of the amount spent on the repair of the scooter. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
2. The appellants filed the written reply. The objection of the appellants was that the respondent who was driving the scooter at the material time of the accident was holding a licence for the driving of Motor car (pvt) only and as such he was not holding F.A. No. 13 of 2006 2 the valid and effecting driving licence. Hence the repudiation of the claim was legal and valid. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
3. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
4. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint vide impugned order dated 25.11.2005 with costs of Rs. 750/- and the appellants were directed to make the payment of Rs. 4340/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the respondent.
5. Hence the appeal.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that since the respondent was not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay the claim. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 3055 of 2008 "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaharulnisha and others." decided on 29.4.2008. Hence it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 25.11.2005 be set-aside.
7. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
8. There is no denying fact that Surjit Singh respondent was driving the scooter at the time of accident. The copy of the driving licence of Surjit Singh is proved as Ex. R-7. This driving licence was valid from 7.12.1990 to 5.9.2005 and it was valid for motor car (pvt) only.
9. The sole question for determination by us was whether the respondent was in possession of a valid and proper driving licence for driving the vehicle i.e. the scooter involved in the accident.
10. It is settled law that the holder of one driving licence is authorized to drive only that category of vehicle but his driving licence cannot be considered to be a valid and effective driving licence for driving any other category of vehicle. F.A. No. 13 of 2006 3
11. Since in this case the vehicle for which the respondent was holding a valid licence belonged to the category of light Motor Vehicle (LMV), therefore, he was fully qualified to drive all vehicles of that category, scooter being one of them. Hence the repudiation of the claim by the appellants was unreasonable and arbitrary. Moreover the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellants is not applicable as it pertained to different facts and circumstances.
12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and accordingly we dismiss the same with no order to costs.
13. The arguments in this case were heard on 21.7.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma) Member July 27, 2011 Rupinder