State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amar Singh vs Nic Ltd. on 17 September, 2008
H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Appeal No. 12/2008.
Date of Decision 17.9.2008.
Amar
Singh S/o Sh. Sukh Ram R/o Village Ambota,
PO Taksal, Tehsil Kasauli, Distt. Solan, HP.
..Appellant.
Versus
National
Insurance Company Limited Parwanoo,
Tehsil
Kasauli, Distt. Solan, HP through its Branch Manager.
.Respondent.
Honble Mr.
Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.
Honble
Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved
for reporting? No.
For the Appellant. Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate vice
Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Vehicle which is subject matter of this case was a transport vehicle being Mahindra Pick Up, bearing registration No. HP-15-3594. Driver namely Surinder Kumar S/o Sh. Kundan Lal was on the wheel at the time of accident. Copy of driving licence has been placed on record as Annexure A-III with the complaint file and also by the respondent-Insurance Company alongwith the report of Sh. Kulwant Singh Katoch Advocate, Solan. It is at page 14 onwards.
Similarly vehicle was registered as LCV Pick Up is again made out from photostat copy of certificate of registration which is at page 20 onwards. Amongst other things, taxes were being paid from time to time by the appellant is again established. Vehicle was insured for Rs.
2,84,000/- w.e.f. 24.1.2003 to 23.1.2004.
2. During the validity of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle on 28.3.2003 suffered damage due to accident. Appellant claims to have spent Rs. 1,66,000/- on repairs. On receipt of intimation regarding accident, surveyor was appointed and final motor survey report is Annexure R-3. It shows that the net amount payable according to the surveyor who is an expert in the subject of loss assessment in case of damage caused, was Rs. 77,529.55 paise. This is what he has worked out at page 104 of the complaint file. He has assessed the expected salvage value at Rs. 3500/-.
3. Driver admittedly was authorized to drive medium motor vehicle as also for LTV (Non Transport). A perusal of the licence shows that it has been issued from 16.3.2001 to 4.6.2020. Whereas, as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder, in case Surinder Kumar was to drive a commercial/transport vehicle, his licence in law was required to be endorsed by the competent authority to drive this class of vehicle and is required to be renewed every three years. District Forum below vide its order dated 31st October, 2007 has dismissed the complaint after placing reliance on two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors., II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxminarain Dhut, 2007 CTJ 445 (Supreme Court) (CP).
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his client has bonafide engaged the driver who had been driving the vehicle properly and without any fault. As such District Forum below fell into error by ignoring this vital aspect of the case while dismissing the complaint. On the other hand Mr. Thakur submitted, that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity so as to call for interference in this appeal.
He prayed for upholding the order in the light of the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court referred to by the District Forum below while dismissing the complaint.
5. So far legal proposition that in order to enable a driver like Surinder Kumar to drive a commercial/transport vehicle, we are of the view, that there has to be proper endorsement as per law in his driving licence. Admittedly it is not there on the licence of the driver on the date of accident. Thus there was breach/violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, including limitation at to its use. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then the decision of this case need not wait.
6. Reason being that as per regulations framed by the Insurance Regulatory Authority, under Regulations 10 and its sub para 3, it is clear that where there is breach of warranty/conditions of insurance policy including limitation as to its use, then the compensation is payable upto 75% of the admissible compensation.
7. Faced with this situation Mr. Thakur submitted, that this is a case of no licence, therefore, benefit if any needs to be extended to his client-insurance company by exonerating it and above all insurance company would only be liable to indemnify an insured like appellant, when a case is made out as per law for the grant of compensation claimed.
8. In the circumstances of this case, we are of the view that this case needs to be treated on Non Standard Basis, as per Regulation 10 which deals with such claims. Reason being that this case is squarely covered by third part of Regulation 10. For taking this view we place reliance on 2 decisions of the National Commission in the case of Kesarban Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,(2000) NCJ (NC) 632, Poly Mat India Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors., 2000 CCJ 64 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambharoshi Rathore, II (2008) CPJ 347 (NC). Nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice.
9. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, while accepting the report of the surveyor it is ordered that the appellant is entitled to of Rs. 77,529.55 paise as assessed by the surveyor, which comes to Rs 58,148/- and at the same time to return the salvage to the insurance company. In case he fails to return the salvage, then its expected value as assessed by surveyor i.e. Rs. 3,500/- shall be deducted out of the amount that has been held to be payable to the appellant by the respondent.
In addition to above sum of Rs. 58,148/-, appellant is also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, till the date of payment/deposit whichever is earlier, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.
Shimla.
17th September, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Saroj Sharma), d.kZ* Member.