State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Anjali Arora on 14 February, 2020
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 152 of 2019 Date of Institution : 25.07.2019 Date of Decision : 14.02.2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Second Floor, Jeevan Prakash Building, Near UTI, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager, through its authorized officer at SCO 36-37, Sector 17A, Chandigarh. .....Appellant/Opposite Party. Versus Anjali Arora d/o Sh. Sohan Lal Arora r/o 2009, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. ...Respondent/Complainant. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Argued by:
Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent/complainant alongwith respondent/complainant in person.
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the opposite party (appellant herein) against order dated 10.06.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum'), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.218 of 2018 filed by the complainant (respondent herein) was partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,99,500/- (on net of salvage basis with RC) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 17.4.2018 till realization besides awarding Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her and costs of litigation. The order was directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the awarded amounts were to carry penal interest.
2. It is not in dispute that the complainant was plying his car bearing registration No.CH02-AA-6815 as commercial vehicle and the said car was insured with the opposite party for the period from 28.2.2017 to 27.2.2018 and its Insured Declared Value (IDV) was Rs.4,40,200/-. On 27.01.2018, the said vehicle met with an accident in District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was badly damaged and its driver died. On receipt of claim by the opposite party, a Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the damage as total loss and assessed it at Rs.3,99,500/- on net of salvage basis with RC and Rs.4,09,500/- on net of salvage basis without RC as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver was operating transport vehicle whereas the licence possessed by him was not endorsed for transport vehicle.
3. The only question to be decided before us, whether, repudiation of the claim on the aforesaid ground by the opposite party was justified? The answer to this question is in the negative. This issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukand Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 decided on 03.07.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 46 (ii) held as under:-
"(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form."
4. Further in Sub Para (iv) of Para 46, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, interalia, that ".....there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect." Further, in compliance to aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Mukand Dewangan (supra), Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi vide its Notification bearing No.RT-11021/44/2017-MVL dated 16.04.2018 in Para 3 notified as under:-
"3. In view of the legal position as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, the requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to obtain the transport licence would arise in case of medium/heavy goods and passenger vehicles only. No other vehicle will require any separate endorsement, even if they are used for commercial purpose. The exemption from the requirement to obtain the endorsement for commercial vehicles would apply to following vehicles;
Motor cycle without gear Motor cycle with gear Light motor vehicle (goods/passenger) E-rickshaw/e-cart
4. It is requested that the appropriate instructions may please be issued to the licencing authorities and the enforcement authorities for compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above."
5. It may also be stated here that this Commission in case titled as M.L. Khurana Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Appeal No.95 of 2017 decided on 12.9.2017 had observed that "Transport vehicle" would include medium goods vehicles, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor and also made reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Mukund Dewangan (Supra) vide which it was finally settled that if a driver possesses a licence to drive a car, no endorsement is required, if such car is being used for transport/taxi purpose.
6. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law and in our considered opinion, the appellant/opposite partly illegally and arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant.
7. In our considered opinion, the Forum, while allowing the complaint, has rightly ordered the respondent/opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,99,500/- (on net of salvage basis with RC) alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 17.4.2018 till realization besides awarding Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her and costs of litigation. As such, no case is made out to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Forum and as such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. For the reasons recorded above, we concur with the findings given by the Forum in its judgment and are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 10.06.2019 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint bearing No.218 of 2018 is upheld.
10. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
11. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
14.02.2020.
[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad