State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Comapny Ltd. vs Virender Singh on 27 June, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 266 / 2013
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through Regional Manager
Rajpur Road, Dehradun
......Appellant/Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
Sh. Virender Singh S/o Sh. Vishan Singh
R/o Village Sunargaon, Patti-Gusain
Tehsil Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal
.......Respondent/Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Somendra Singh Belwal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 27/06/2016
ORDER
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the appellant-opposite party No.1 against the order dated 24.08.2013 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 13 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the insurance company and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 3,79,500/- together with interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint, i.e. 08.08.2012, to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant-Virender Singh has purchased a small vehicle named Mahindra & Mahindra, Genio-Pick-up in the year 2011 for his livelihood, which was insured by the opposite party No. 1-National Insurance Co. Ltd. for a period from 23.02.2011 to 22.02.2012 for a sum of 2 Rs. 4,80,320/- and the policy number is 4610001/31/10/6300011256. The said vehicle was financed by the opposite party No. 2-Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. The complainant has registered his vehicle under RTO, Rishikesh, who provided registration No. UK07-CC- 1532. The aforesaid vehicle of the complainant met an accident on 14.07.2011, when the complainant was coming from Pauri to Rishikesh. The said accident took place at Srinagar-Rishkesh Motor Road, wherein the vehicle was totally damaged. At the time of accident, the complainant was plying the said vehicle himself, who became injured in this accident. At the time of accident, the complainant was alone in the said vehicle. The complainant was injured, for which he was taking treatment, therefore, his brother informed the S.O. Muni-ki-Reti about the accident on 20.07.2011. The complainant was having valid driving license at the time of accident. The complainant informed the opposite parties regarding the accident. The opposite party No. 1-insurance company has appointed the surveyor, who inspected the accidented vehicle. The opposite parties has directed the complainant to obtain the repair estimate from the service station. The complainant has obtained a repair estimate of Rs. 6,22,400/- from Dehradun Premier Motor Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun, which was denied by the opposite party No. 1, as the estimate was more than the insured amount of the vehicle, for which the complainant could not repair his vehicle and the said vehicle is under the possession of the opposite party No. 2-Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. After false assurance about the claim, on 27.06.2012 the opposite party No. 1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant, as no hill endorsement was made in the driving license of the driver and the driver was not authorised to drive the vehicle in the hill routes of Uttarakhand. Aggrieved by repudiation of the insurance company, the complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal.
3. The consumer complaint was contested by the opposite party No.1- National Insurance Co. Ltd. The opposite party No. 1 has filed written 3 statement before the District Forum and has pleaded that complainant's vehicle was using for commercial purpose, so the complainant does not come under the definition of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the consumer complaint is not maintainable before the District Forum. The complainant was not having a valid driving license to ply the vehicle in hilly areas. Therefore, the claim was rightly repudiated by the answering opposite party. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The repudiation of the complainant's claim is just and correct and has been done according to the terms and conditions of the policy. The facts narrated in the complaint are wrong, therefore, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed against the answering opposite party.
4. The opposite party No. 2-Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. has filed written statement before the District Forum and has pleaded that the complainant has took a loan of Rs. 5,30,893/- from the answering opposite party.
5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 24.08.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party No. 1- appellant has filed the present appeal.
6. Smt. Anjali Gusain, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. Somendra Singh Belwal, learned counsel for respondent appeared. We have gone through the entire record of the District Forum and have also perused the material placed on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party No. 1 has submitted before the Commission that the liability of the appellant is not covered by the condition and provisions of the policy. The District Forum has failed to 4 consider that the claim was repudiated because the driving license was not valid. The driving license was not endorsed for hill driving on the date of the accident. Because the accident occurred in the Hill routes of Uttarakhand and the driving license of the driver at the time of accident was not endorsed for hill driving.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the driver- Sh. Virender Singh-respondent was driving the vehicle for the last 09 years on hill routes.
9. In case of Rajinder Singh Negi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; IV (2008) CPJ 250 (NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has observed that the hill road endorsement on a driving licence is not a mere formality, which can be brushed aside as unnecessary in a State, which is generally hilly. Consequently, repudiation of the own-damage insurance claim of the petitioner by the respondent insurance company is valid in law. Repudiation of claim by insurer justified. This Commission in the case of First Appeal No. 68 of 2014; Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sh. Purushottam Dutt Pant, decided on 24.02.2016, has held that there is no hill endorsement made in the driving licence of driver. Section 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 clearly prohibits plying of a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hilly routes by a person, who has not been permitted by the registering authority and not endorsed driving licence. There was no hill endorsement so as to authorize him to drive the vehicle in hill roads.
10. Rule 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 are applicable in the State of Uttarakhand also, which reads as under:-
"193. Endorsement of certain licences for hill roads - No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a Registering Authority with a permission to 5 drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such Registering Authority or in the case of a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the Registering Authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangement on the point have been agreed upon".
11. The vehicle in question was a Mahindra & Mahindra, Genio-Pick-up fall within the definition of Public Service Vehicle as envisaged in Section 2(35) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Driver Sh. Virender Singh-respondent was issued a driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). From the perusal of the said driving license, it is observed that there was no hill endorsement. Therefore, it is clear that the driver-Sh. Virender Singh was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Section 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 clearly prohibits plying of a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hilly routes by a person, who has not permitted by the registering authority and not endorsed driving licence. There was no hill endorsement so as to authorize him to drive the vehicle in hill roads. There is no dispute that the accident took place in the hills of the State of Uttarakhand. Thus, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that on the date of accident, driver-respondent was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, which is a public service vehicle and was having permit at the time of accident on a hill route. As there was no hill endorsement on his driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the respondent's claim.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order. The order impugned being not sustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be set aside and appeal is fit to be allowed.
13 In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.2013 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal is set 6 aside and the consumer complaint No. 13 of 2012 is dismissed. No order as to costs. The statutory amount at the time of filing the appeal and 50% of the awarded amount deposited by the appellant be released in appellant's favour.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)