State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Subash Chander vs United Insurance Company Limited on 8 June, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.980 of 2007
Date of Institution : 10.07.2007
Date of decision : 08.06.2012
1. Subash Chander
2. Satish Kumar
Both sons of Sh.Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.538, Ward No.7,
Mahaveer Nagar, Malout, District Muktsar.
...Appellants
Versus
United Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Malout through its Branch
Manager, Malout.
...Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 3.5.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President.
Sh.Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT VERSION OF THE APPELLANTS Ramesh Kumar (now deceased) father of the appellants was the owner of TVS Victor motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-53-9652 It was insured with the respondents for the period from 23.2.2005 to 22.2.2006.
2. It was further pleaded that unfortunately this vehicle met with an accident on 11.3.2005 with jeep No.RJ-13C/5150. Ramesh Kumar died in this accident. The TVS Victor motor cycle was also extensively damaged in this accident.
3. It was further pleaded that the insurance claim was lodged with the respondents in addition to the amount of Rs.1 lac as compulsory insurance of owner / driver as per the policy issued by the respondents. The claim was repudiated by the respondents. Hence the complaint for recovery of Rs.34,000/- and Rs.1 lac. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed. First Appeal No.980 of 2007 2 VERSION OF THE RESPONDENTS
4. The respondents filed written reply. It was admitted that Ramesh Kumar was the owner of TVS Victor motor cycle bearing RC No.PB-53-9652 and it was insured with the respondents for the period from 23.2.2005 to 22.2.2006. It was denied for want of knowledge if the appellants were the sons of Ramesh Kumar.
5. It was further pleaded that the respondents had received the information regarding the accident and death of Ramesh Kumar. But it was denied if the motor cycle was completely damaged. It was also denied if the appellants were entitled to the recovery of Rs.34,000/- or Rs.1 lac. It was pleaded that Ramesh Kumar was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, when he was driving TVS motor cycle. Therefore, the claim of the appellants was repudiated. It was legal and valid. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to any insurance claim.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:
6. Parties produced the affidavits / documents in supports of their respective versions.
7. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short "District Forum") dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 3.5.2007 as Ramesh Kumar was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
8. Hence the appeal.
DISCUSSION:
9. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that Ramesh Kumar was holding a valid driving licence. Therefore, the appeal be accepted, impugned order dated 3.5.2007 be set aside and the respondents be directed to pay the insurance claim.
10. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents was that since Ramesh Kumar was not holding the valid driving licence, while he was driving TVS Victor motor cycle. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to any insurance claim. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble First Appeal No.980 of 2007 3 Supreme Court of India reported as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors. AIR 2008, SC 2218.
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. The appellants have proved the RC of Ramesh Kumar as Ex.C3. It was issued by SDM-cum-Registering Authority (MV) Malout, District Muktsar. A copy of driving licence of Ramesh Kumar has been proved as Ex.C4. Its number is legible as 70290/FZR. The validity period is mentioned on the subsequent page. Later on it was got renewed up to 1.5.2000 on 2.8.1997.
13. On the other hand, the respondents have proved the report dated 18.11.2005 as Ex.OP7, in which it is reported by SDM-cum-Licensing Authority (MV Malout) that driving licence No.1370/MKS was renewed in the name of Ramesh Kumar for the period from 5.11.2003 to 4.11.2006. It was valid for LTV.
14. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondents has made reference to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaharulnisha & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2218. The facts of Zaharulnisha were narrated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 3 as under:-
"Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under:-
On 23.07.2001 at about 6:00 p.m. one Shukurullah was going from Kasya Courts to his village Shivpur on a bicycle. A two wheeler scooter, bearing registration No.UP 57-5901, being driven by one Ram Surat in a rash and negligent manner hit Shukurullah near Sapha P.S.Kasya and as a result thereof, Shurkurullah sustained grievous injuries and died. The ill - fated scooter was owned by Vakilrao - respondent No.8 herein. The legal representatives of deceased Shukurullah lodged a Claim Petition No.98/2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khushi Nagar / Additional District Judge and they claimed compensation for the death of their sole bread earner."
15. The claim was accepted by M.A.C.T. and compensation was awarded and the insurance company was directed to pay the insurance claim. The matter First Appeal No.980 of 2007 4 reached to the Hon'ble High Court. The submission raised by the Insurnace Company before the Hon'ble High Court was as under:-
"The appellant - insurance company filed an appeal before the High Court. Before the High Court it was contended that as the driver Ram Surat was holding licence for driving Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) only, therefore, he had no valid licence to drive a two wheeler scooter which is totally a different class of vehicle in terms of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act'). It was contended that in view of the breach of the provisions of the MV Act, the appellant - insurance company cannot be held liable to satisfy the award in terms of Section 149(2) of the MV Act."
16. In these circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-
"21. In the light of the above - settled proposition of law, the appellant - insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act."
17. It means, therefore, even if the man holding HMV, he was not entitled to drive a scooter unless he holds the driving licence for driving the scooter.
18. In the present case also, Ramesh Kumar was holding the driving licence for LMV. The LMV was valid only for driving car / jeep. But it is not valid for driving two wheeler. Therefore, Ramesh Kumar was not holding valid driving licence at the time when he was driving the motor cycle TVS victor. Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and it was rightly held that the complainants are not held liable to any compensation. First Appeal No.980 of 2007 5
19. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
20. The arguments in this case were heard on 30.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now parties be communicated about the same.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Justice S.N.Aggarwal) President (Jasbir Singh Gill), Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member June 08, 2012.
Davinder