State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance ... vs Pooja on 4 May, 2015
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL No.10 of 2014
Date of Institution: 06.01.2014
Date of Decision : 04.05.2015
1. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited,
2907/1, C/10, Jindal Complex, G.T.Road, Bathinda through its
Branch Manager.
2. Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Head
Office : Dare House , Second Floor No.2, NSC Bose
Road, Chennai- 600001, through its M.D. Both through Sh.
Shubhanshu Jain, Authorized Signatory/Duly Constituted
Attorney, Available at Cholamandlam MS General Insurance
Company Limited, SCO 2463-2464, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
VERSUS
1. Pooja aged about 23 years wd/o Puneet Bansal @ Punit
Bansal s/o Ramesh Kumar Bansal.
2. Nishant Bansal aged about 3 years minor son of Puneet
Bansal @ Punit Bansal s/o Ramesh Kumar Bansal, through
his natural guardian and mother Pooja.
3. Sarita Devi aged about 46 years, wife of Ramesh Kumar
Bansal and mother of Puneet Bansal deceased. All residents
of House No.17424, Gali No.1, Minocha Colony, Bathinda.
.....Respondents/Complainants
First Appeal against the order dated
15.10.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:
For the appellants : Sh. Sanjaiv Goyal, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate 2 F.A. No. 10 of 2014 BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 15.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by respondents/complainants was accepted with Rs.20,000/- as costs and compensation against the appellants/opposite parties (in short 'the OPs') and they were directed to pay 75% of Rs.4,73,500/-(IDV of the vehicle i.e. Rs.2,73,500/- + Rs.2 lacs on account of PA owner/driver) i.e. Rs.3,55,125/- to the complainants within 45 days of receipt of order, failing which, the amount of Rs.3,55,125/- was to carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Puneet Bansal, husband of the complainant No.1, father of the complainant No.2 and son of the complainant No.3, was having Tata Ace four wheeler, bearing registration No.PB-03X-7630, that was insured with the OPs vide cover note No.8818577/ policy bearing No.3379/00700781/000/00; though no policy was ever received by him. The said policy was valid for the period 5.4.2012 to 4.4.2013, in which personal accident cover of Rs.2.00 lacs was also available in case of accidental death of the owner/driver. It was pleaded that Puneet Bansal was holding a driving licence, bearing No.PB-30- 3015-NDL-2006-07, issued by the licensing authority, Mukatsar that was valid from 22.2.2007 to 21.2.2027. On 29.10.2012, he was going to supply the mattresses to Sardulgarh via Talwandi Sabo on the abovesaid four wheeler and when he reached petrol pump near 3 F.A. No. 10 of 2014 village Natheha, he met with an accident with a truck, as a result of which, the insured vehicle was totally damaged and he died at the spot. FIR No.150 of 29.10.2012, under section 304-A, 279, 337, 338 of IPC, was registered at police station, Talwandi Sabo, on the statement of Ramesh Bansal, father of the deceased. The post- mortem was also got conducted on the body of the deceased on the same day in Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo. After receipt of intimation of the accident, OPs appointed the Surveyor, who visited the spot on 30.10.2012 and received all the requisite documents, including the claim form, from the complainant No.1. The surveyor also obtained her signatures on number of printed unfilled forms, blank papers and white papers on the pretext that the claim would be paid shortly. The loss assessed by Surveyor to the four wheeler was more than Rs.3 lacs. The said surveyor informed the complainants that claim No.3379067043 has been lodged for processing and the same would be paid shortly. OPs issued letters dated 14.12.2012 and 5.1.2013 demanding some more documents. On 20.5.2013, OPs issued another letter in the name of deceased-Puneet Bansal repudiating the insurance claim on the false ground that at the time of accident, the driver of insured vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence and that the claim was wrongly repudiated. It was pleaded that Puneet Bansal was holding a valid effective driving licence. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, the complainants sought directions to the OPs to make them payment of sum insured of Rs.3 lacs and Rs.2 lacs on account of personal accident cover alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of death i.e. 30.10.2012 till 4 F.A. No. 10 of 2014 realization. Rs. 2 lacs were demanded as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment caused to them.
3. Upon notice, OPs contested the complaint and filed their joint written reply pleading therein that the deceased/life assured was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the insured vehicle at the time of accident. As such, he violated the terms and conditions of the policy as well as Motor Vehicles Act. So the complainants were not entitled to any amount. It was denied that the policy or its terms and conditions were not supplied to the life assured. They pleaded that on receipt of intimation about the accident, they appointed the surveyor and investigator to assess the loss and for verification of the documents. On receipt of the investigation report and survey report, it was found that deceased Puneet Bansal, who was the driver at the time of alleged accident, was having invalid driving licence. So they were not liable to pay any claim under the policy. Repudiation letter dated 20.5.2013 was issued to that effect. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Forum, which after going through the same, allowed the complaint, in aforesaid terms.
5. Aggrieved by this order, the OPs have come up in appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum ignored the facts that the insured Puneet Bansal was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The vehicle, in question, was a commercial LTV vehicle whereas he was holding a licence that was only valid for motor cycle 5 F.A. No. 10 of 2014 with gear. The licence to drive LTV, that was valid for the period 22.2.2007 to 21.2.2010, had already expired. As such, he was not competent to drive LTV. Learned District Forum wrongly ordered to pay 75% of the claim amount on non-standard basis which is against the provisions of the terms and conditions of the policy. It was wrongly held that as per report of DTO, the licence was valid up to 21.02.2010 but there was no denial on the part of the DTO that licence was invalid or fake till 21.2.2010. Thus, holding valid licence prior to the accident does not in any way doubts his skill of driving. Once, it is proved that the licence was not valid, then, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as of the Motor Vehicles Act. The District Forum totally ignored the fundamental provisions of law. It failed to appreciate that as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive a Motor Vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence. The learned District Forum has ignored the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. Acceptance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order was prayed.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the learned District Forum has reached the correct conclusion by relying upon the judgment passed by this Commission reported as 2006 (2) CPC 584 'National Insurance Company Vs. M/s Surinder Kumar, Ashok Kumar'.
7. Admittedly, the insured vehicle met with accident on 29.10.2012 during the subsistence of the insurance policy obtained by the deceased Puneet Bansal from the OPs, in which the vehicle was 6 F.A. No. 10 of 2014 badly damaged and he died at the spot. On receipt on the intimation regarding the accident, Sh. Rajan Singla was appointed as investigator.
8. The driving licence produced by the complainants before the OPs has been proved as Ex.OP-1/3; which was issued for LTV and Motor Cycle with gear on 22.2.2007. The investigator, Sh. Rajan Singla, got this driving licence verified from District Transport Officer, Muktsar, vide letter Ex.OP 1/9. The verification report dated 2.4.2013 is endorsed on this letter itself and states as under :
" the driving licence No. PB-30-3015/NDL/06-07 that was issued in the name of Puneet Kumar son of Ramesh Kumar r/o Ward No.3 Gidderbaha, District Muktsar Sahib was valid from 22.2.2007 to 21.2.2027 for Motor Cycle and was valid from 22.2.2007 to 21.2.2010 for LTV."
9. Apparently, the driving licence for LTV stood expired on 21.2.2010 and was never renewed thereafter. The accident took place more than two years after its expiry i.e. on 29.10.2012. As per Section 14 (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, every driving licence remains effective only for a period of 30 days from its expiry. Thus, the life assured was driving the insured vehicle without a valid driving licence at the time of accident that amounted to violation of Motor Vehicles Act as well as 'Driver's clause as contained in policy (Ex.OP-1/12) that provides as under :
"Persons or class of person entitled to drive : Any person including the Insured : Provided that the person driving, holds 7 F.A. No. 10 of 2014 an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not is qualified from holding or obtaining such a licence."
Though the life assured was having a licence that was valid for LTV, but same stood expired more than two years prior to the accident and same was never got renewed after 21.2.2010. An expired licence can not be said to be a valid licence against the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act; section 3 of which, provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence. An expired licence cannot be said to be valid after 30 days of its expiry.
10. Hon'ble National Commission in II (2013) CPJ (NC) (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Foods) held as under :
"8. Thus, it becomes clear that on the date of accident, driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle, as no endorsement was made on his driving licence to the fact that he is permitted to drive transport vehicle also and in such circumstances, petitioner has not committed any error in repudiating claim.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, as the licence was issued in 1996 and was valid upto 2013, there was no occasion for the driver to get any endorsement, as light motor vehicle also covered transport vehicle at the time of issuance of the licence. This argument is devoid of force, because it is to be seen whether driver was holding a valid driving licence required under the law for driving a particular 8 F.A. No. 10 of 2014 type of vehicle at the time of accident. Admittedly, driver was driving a transport vehicle and his driving licence did not contain endorsement regarding permission to drive transport vehicle. Effect of subsequent amendment can be illustrated by an illustration. "Suppose, a licence is issued to drive a vehicle falling within the purview of light transport vehicle according to weight and later on by amendment, particular weight of vehicle is covered by medium motor vehicle, then in such circumstances, a person holding light motor vehicle's licence cannot drive medium motor vehicle after amendment, though, he was permitted to drive a vehicle of that much weight falling within definition of Light Motor Vehicle at the time of grant of driving licence."
10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear that driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence at the time of accident and petitioner/OP has not committed any error in repudiating claim of the complainant/respondent and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and revision petition is to be allowed and complaint is liable to be dismissed. "
11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9F.A. No. 10 of 2014
12. A sum of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by the appellants at the time of filing of the appeal before this Commission. Another amount of Rs.207659/- was deposited by them vide receipt No.187401 dated 12.03.2014 as per directions of this Commission. Both these amounts, alongwith interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellants/opposite parties by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
13. The arguments in the case were heard on 27.04.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER May 04 , 2015 KK 10 F.A. No. 10 of 2014