State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Sunita Devi on 17 April, 2004
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1449 OF 2012
Date of Institution: 26.10.2012
Date of Decision: 17.04.2014
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through authorized signatory-
cum-Deputy Manager, Regional Officer, SCO No.109-111, Surendra
Building, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party
VERSUS
Sunita Devi wido of Jabehh Kumar son of Ashrifi Shah, resident of
H. No. 24525, Street No.1, Hazi Rattan Bathinda.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 &3.
First Appeal against the order
dated 24.08.2012 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Achin Gupta, Advocate SMT. SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Sunita Devi respondent/complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay Insured Declared Value of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 2,87,090/- and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation.
2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, the husband of the complainant was the owner of the TATA, ACE vehicle bearing Temporary Registration No.PB-03M First Appeal No. 1449 of 2012 Page 2 of 5 Temp.-634 and he got the same insured with opposite parties w.e.f 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2011, vide Cover Note No.994236, to cover the risk of loss/damage for IDV of Rs. 2,87,090/-. It met with an accident on 28.4.2011 when her husband, along with Drvier Nand Kumar, was going to Ferozepur after loading 'Bardana' in the same. FIR No.29 dated 28.4.2011 was got registered against the driver under Section 279/304-A of I.P.C. in P.S. Nehianwala. The damaged vehicle was parked in the workshop of Padam Motors, Bibwala Road, Bathinda. she also got the estimate regarding the repair of his said vehicle to the tune of Rs. 3,79,699/- prepared from it. She filed claim with opposite parties along with the requisite documents but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Under the circumstances, she was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,87,090/- as insurance claim along with Rs.100,000/- as damages for the mental agony and harassment caused to her by the opposite parties besides Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. She prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite parties.
3. In a joint written reply, filed by the opposite parties, it was admitted that after the intimation of the damage to the vehicle was received, a surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs. 2,44,527/-. They denied the other averments made in the complaint and pleaded that the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by one Nand Kumar, who was having driving licence for LMV only whereas the licence for transport vehicle was required. As the driver was not having a valid effective driving licence, the claim of the complainant was found not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy.
4. Evidence was produced by the parties before the District Forum in support of their respective averments. After going through the First Appeal No. 1449 of 2012 Page 3 of 5 same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, the District Forum allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that it was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence for driving the vehicle and that the claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated. From the evidence produced on record, it stands proved that the driver of the vehicle was possessing a driving licence for driving 'LMV' vehicle and he was not having any driving licence for driving a 'transport vehicle' nor there was any endorsement regarding the 'transport vehicle' on that licence. As the vehicle was being driven by the driver, who was not possessing a valid and effective licence, so there was the breach of the fundamental terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated on that ground.
7. On the other, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that, on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence produced by the complainant, the District Forum has correctly allowed the complaint and there was no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the District Forum.
8. As per the certificate of Registration of the Vehicle Ex. C-5, the unladen weight thereof was 800 Kg. and the gross vehicle weight was 1550 kilograms. The definition of 'Light Motor Vehicle' as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides as under.
"Such a vehicle means a transport vehicle, Ommbus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or First Appeal No. 1449 of 2012 Page 4 of 5 road roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 Kg.
9. Although the vehicle, in question, falls within the description of 'Light Motor Vehicle' but same is covered under transport vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was possessing a driving licence, which was proved on the record as Ex. R-5, scrutiny of which, shows that it was valid for LMV/MCWG only. Moreover, on the backside of Ex. R-5, it is specified that licence was valid for Non-Transport Vehicles.
10. Accordingly to Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the driving licence shall be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes:-
(a) motor cycle without gear;
(b) motor cycle with gear;
(c) invalid carriage;
(d) light motor vehicle;
(e) transport vehicle;
(f) road-roller;
(g) motor vehicle of a specified description.
11. While interpreting different Sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 419 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Angad Kol & Ors.) that from the provisions of Section 10(2) the distinction between a 'light motor vehicle' and a 'transport vehicle' is evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. It becomes very much clear from the ratio of that judgment that a person having a licence to drive a 'light motor vehicle' does not become entitled to drive a 'transport vehicle', for which a distinct licence is required. First Appeal No. 1449 of 2012 Page 5 of 5
12. It is an admitted fact that Nand Kumar was holding licence only for driving the LMV/MCWG and there was no such endorsement on his driving licence to make it valid for the transport vehicle. Therefore, he was not entitled to drive L.T. V. The claim of the complainant was, rightly repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that its driver was not possessing a legal and valid driving licence at the time of accident.
13. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of opposite party is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
14. The appellant had deposited Rs.25000/- with Commission at the time of filing of appeal. This amount Rs.25000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the Registry to the appellant by way of Cross Cheque/Demand Draft after expiry of 45 days and under intimation to the learned District Forum.
15. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.04.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) PRESIDING MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER April 17th, 2013 SONIA