State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Brahm Kishore Sood vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 31 December, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
First Appeal No: 327/2013.
Date of Presentation: 13.11.2013
Date of Decision: 31.12.2013.
..............................................................................
Brahm Kishore Sood,
S/o Sh. Des Raj Sood,
R/o Kishore Bhawan, Sanjauli,
Shimla-6, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Through its Branch Manager,
Divisional Office, Mythe Estate,
Kaithu, Shimla-3, H.P.
... Respondent.
....................................................................................
...............
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Ms. Pooja Kaushal, Advocate vice
Ms. Anu Tuli Azta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Karol, Advocate
......................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No.201/2010 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, H.P., whereby the complaint was dismissed by holding that the there is no merit in the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? (Brahm Kishore Sood VS. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) present complaint. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint.
2. Facts of the case within narrow compass are that the complainant in order to earn his livelihood had purchased Mahindra and Mahindra Pick UP vehicle in the year 2000, which was financed by the Punjab & Sind Bank. This vehicle was got insured with the opposite party w.e.f. 21.02.2009 and 22.01.2010. This vehicle met with an accident on 16.06.2009 and vehicle was extensively damaged. Thereafter, claim was lodged with the opposite party, who had appointed a surveyor and loss was also got assessed, which was assessed to the tune of Rs. 59,500/-. The claim of complainant was repudiated vide, Annexure C-5, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding the effective and valid driving license. Since the claim was repudiated by the opposite party in the present case, as such, deficiency of service had been alleged on the part of the opposite party and it was alleged that the claim had been wrongly repudiated, whereas Sunil Kumar, was holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. In this background, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed against the opposite party for alleged deficiency of service.
2 (Brahm Kishore Sood VS. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.)
3. This claim was resisted and contested by the opposite party, who had alleged that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding the effective and valid driving license. It was also alleged that the vehicle was carrying unauthorized passengers at the time of occurrence. The license of the driver was also got verified by the opposite party from RLA (Rural) Shimla and the same was found to be only for travelling Light Motor Vehicles, as such, prayer had been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Brief resume of the evidence led by the parties in nut-shell is that the complainant in support of its case had filed its own affidavit and had placed reliance upon number of documents Annexure C-1 to C-5. Opposite party in support of the case had filed affidavit of its Senior Divisional Manager, Balbir Singh and had placed reliance upon number of documents Annexures R-1 to R-7. Affidavit of Surveyor Sh. Rajnish Kumar Dhiman, and also of Sh. Pritam Singh Chandel, who was deputed by the insurance company to verify the contents of the driving license from RLA, Shimla, H.P. had been filed and relied upon by the opposite party.
3 (Brahm Kishore Sood VS. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.)
5. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case minutely.
6. Ms. Pooja Kaushal, counsel for the appellant argued that the order of the Forum below is not legally sustainable and number of judgments, which had been relied upon by the Fora below are not applicable in the present case and she also argued that license of the driver, which was issued for LMV-NT was issued on 27.05.1996 and it was valid and effective driving license, since it was issued prior to amendments in Motor Vehicles Act, which came to effect on 28.03.2001. Only from this date person having LMV license is required endorsement on the Driving License, authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle and it is not applicable in the case of the complainant.
7. Sanjay Karol, counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the learned Fora below. As per him, there was no endorsement on the license of Sh. Sunil Kumar, Annexure C-3, and it was only for driving the LMV vehicles. Moreover, the date of accident in the present case is 16.06.2009, and as such, there must be an endorsement for driving the transport vehicle, which is lacking in the present case and as such, there is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy 4 (Brahm Kishore Sood VS. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) and he had also placed reliance upon number of precedent laid down by this Commission in Case titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Banolta, Revision Petition No.4055 of 2010, decided on 11th April, 2011.
8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case minutely, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Fora below. Reasons being, that in the present case Sh. Sunil Kumar was driving the vehicle at that relevant time and he was only authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle, as per license Annexure C-3, whereas, as per registration certificate of the vehicle, the said vehicle is Mahindra Pick Up, which is admittedly a transport vehicle and the policy which had been taken by the complainant in the present case was a Carrier Package Policy, which fact is evident from the policy document, Annexure R-2. No doubt, the license was issued in favour of Sunil Kumar Driver on 27.05.1996, but since the date of the occurrence in the present case is 16.06.2009, there ought to have been an endorsement on his license, authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle. The Forum below had rightly placed reliance upon number of judgments, given in case Oriental Insurance 5 (Brahm Kishore Sood VS. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) Company Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol, (2009) 11 SCC 356; National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria (2008) 3 SCC 464 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696. In case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, it was held that amendment carried out in the Motor Vehicles Act, 2001 is prospective in nature. Light Motor Vehicle in Section 2(21) of the Act to mean:
"Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms".
9. Hence, light Motor vehicle means also a Transport vehicle, as such as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1986, there should be an endorsement on the license for driving the transport vehicle, but in the present case, there is no endorsement on the license to the effect that the driver of the vehicle can drive transport vehicle also. Since this license is only valid for non-transport vehicle, as such, there is clearly violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as well as law, since driving of a vehicle without a valid driving license, is also punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles 6 (Brahm Kishore Sood VS. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) Act, 1988, and it is also violation of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, the Forum below had rightly concluded that the opposite party in the present case was justified in repudiating the claim of the appellant, as the driver was not having the requisite driving license and as such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Moreover, as per Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, duration of license for transport vehicle is 3 years, whereas in the other, it is 20 years. In the present case, in license, annexure C-3, duration is upto 19.04.2024, as such license is only valid for LMV-NT.
10. The order of the forum below is based on sound and cogent reasons and supported by number of precedences of Apex Court as well as of this Commission, which have been discussed in detail in the order of the Forum below.
11. In view of the above discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly , the same is dismissed. Our view of supported by the precedent laid down of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Banolta, Revision Petition No.4055 of 2010, decided on 11th April, 2011. No order as to costs.
7 (Brahm Kishore Sood VS. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.)
12. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member December 31, 2013.
Gaurav) 8