National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chhimae Dolma vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 29 January, 2010
OP 10/1998 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 916 OF 2006 [Against the order dated 02.01.2006 in Appeal No.79 of 2005 of the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla] Chhimae Dolma, W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Anand, C/o Himalayan Industries, Plot No. 19, Industrial Area Shamshi, Tehsil & District Kullu Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, Mandi Branch, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner/Complainant Respondent/Opp. Party Appearance : For the Petitioner/ Complainant Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent/Opp. Party Mr. R.C. Mishra, Advocate BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER Pronounced on : 29th January, 2010 ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER A Santro car owned by the petitioner/complainant was insured with the respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd. During the validity period of this insurance, the car met with an accident on 18th of September, 2003, resulting in extensive damage. The matter was reported to the respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd., who allegedly advised the petitioner/complainant to get the car repaired and submit the cash memos/bills for reimbursement. A surveyor too was deputed to reassess the loss caused to the vehicle, who recommended reimbursement of the loss to the tune of Rs.52,942/-. However, even this amount was not paid and the claim was repudiated on the ground that the car at the time of accident was being driven by a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving license. This made the petitioner/complainant to approach the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, H.P. (District Forum for short) in a consumer complaint, who on appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the accident having taken place within 30 days grace period after the date of expiry allowed under proviso to Section 14(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act for short), the license of the driver could not be termed to be either invalid or ineffective. The complaint was allowed and the respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to pay the claim of Rs.53,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim, besides sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and cost. When the matter was taken up in appeal before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (State Commission for short) by the respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd., fact with regard to the driving license having expired on 20th of August, 2003 was not disputed. Allowing a grace period of 30 days under proviso to Section 14(2)(b) of the Act, the license continued to be effective until 19th of September, 2003, but in order to validate the renewal retrospectively, it was necessary for the licensee to have applied for the renewal of the driving license within 30 days from the date of its expiry or else under Section 15 of the Act, the renewal could take effect from the date of actual renewal without allowing any retrospectivity. Since in the case in hand the renewal was effective from 24th of September, 2003, the moot point for consideration before the State Commission in fact was as to whether, in the absence of any application for renewal of the license within the grace period as per proviso to Section 15 of the Act, whether the driving license could be treated as effective and valid during the grace period allowed under Section 14 of the Act? The State Commission after an analysis of these provisions has held that Section 15 of the Act takes into consideration the period of 30 days to be allowed for retrospective effect only if an application for renewal is made within that grace period and not otherwise and has, therefore, dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved against this finding of the State Commission that the petitioner/complainant has approached this Commission in this revision petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant urged before us that the State Commission has failed to consider that the provisions contained under Section 15 of the Act provide that on expiry of a license, it is renewable by submitting an application to the licensing authority within the period of 30 days, which meant that the license will remain valid and effective for the period of 30 days even after its expiry, and when the accident has occurred on 18th of September, 2003, which is a day prior to the expiry of grace period of 30 days, it cannot be said that the license was not effective and valid. There being no other disqualification on any other ground for the driver to hold a valid and effective license, the District Forum had rightly held that the claim had been wrongly repudiated. He has, therefore, prayed that the State Commission, having wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 14(2)(b) of the Act, erroneously set aside the order of the District Forum, which needs to be restored.
Learned counsel for the respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd. on the other hand has submitted that the State Commission after analysis of Sections 14 & 15 of the Act and after due consideration thereof has rightly held that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the driving license having expired on 20th of August, 2003 and subsequently having been renewed w.e.f. 24th of September, 2003 the driver did not have an effective driving license on its expiry on the 20th of August, 2003 until 23rd of September, 2003 and the accident having occurred on the 18th of September, 2003, in fact there was no driving license on the day of this accident, much less effective and valid license. Further, learned counsel has placed reliance on the order passed by this Commission in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal Batra [II (2004) CPJ 57 (NC)], in which, in a case of similar nature where the accident had taken place on 6th of March, 1995 and the license had been renewed on 7th of April, 1995, 35 days after the accident, this Commission has held that license would be deemed to have been renewed from the date of renewal and the risk under the policy was held not to have been covered.
Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there being no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, the revision petition needs to be summarily dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having taken into consideration the fact that the drivers license was in force only upto 20th of August, 2003 but was subsequently renewed w.e.f. 24th of September, 2003 and the accident having occurred on 18th of September, 2003, i.e. during the period between the expiry of the license and its renewal, it cannot but be held that on the date of the accident, the driver did not have a driving license as it had already expired on 20th of August, 2003 and he did not get it renewed until 23rd of September, 2003. This period of interregnum cannot be plugged as a reading of Section 15 of the Act makes it clear that any renewal of an expired license will be valid from the back date only if an application for the renewal is made within 30 days of the date of its expiry. In order to correctly appreciate the import of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, it would be appropriate to extract the same, which read as under :-
14.
Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.
(1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence.
(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,-
(a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: [***] [Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and]
(b) in the case of any other licence,-
(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of [fifty years] on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,-
(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of [fifty years], whichever is earlier;
[(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal:] Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.
15. Renewal of driving licences.
(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry:
Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal:
( x x x ) No doubt, proviso to Section 14(2)(b) states that notwithstanding its expiry, a driving license will continue to be effective for a period of 30 days from such expiry but when read in conjunction with the proviso to Section 15 above, the situation that emerges is that the grace period of 30 days under Section 14 is not independent of Section 15, which clearly states that in the absence of any application for the renewal of a license within the period of 30 days, any renewal will take effect only from the date of its actual renewal and not from the date of expiry. The State Commission, in our view, has correctly given a harmonious interpretation of these two Sections of the Act and has rightly stated that where the driving license is renewed beyond period of 30 days after expiry, it will only be effective from the date of its renewal, and not to an anterior date.
Insofar as reliance placed by the petitioner/complainant on various judgments, including that of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others [(2004) 3 SCC 297] and Jitendra Kumar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another [(2003) 6 SCC 420], the State Commission has discussed and distinguished them and has given the reasons as to why they do not support the case of the petitioner/complainant under the facts of this case. Thus, in totality, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(B.N.P. SINGH) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/