National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Renu Korrin vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 10 October, 2002
ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. (Member)
1. This revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under.
2. The appellant's Maruti car, had met with an accident on 16.1.1994 when the appellant was driving the vehicle and sustained a damage to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. On a claim being lodged with the respondent, M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that the driving licence possessed by the appellant who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not a valid one. In fact, the licence possessed by the appellant was issued by the United Kingdom, which was an International Driving Permit for one year from 23rd April, 1993. Since the claim was repudiated, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum which had dismissed the complaint by adverting to Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein it is provided that the driving licence means the licence issued by Competent Authority under Chapter II authorising the person therein to drive. The Chapter II referred to in this definition as the Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 2(10) is quoted hereunder :
"2(10) 'Driving Licence' means the licence issued by a Competent Authority under Chapter-II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description."
A driving licence issued in the United Kingdom or in any other country cannot be said to be the driving licence having been issued under Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 nor the driving licence issued in any foreign country would satisfy the definition of 'driving licence' as given in Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of what is stated above, the District Forum dismissed the complaint and upheld the contention of the Insurance Company that the complainant was not holding a valid international driving licence. The appeal filed in the State Commission against the order of the District Forum also met the same fate. Hence, the complainant is in revision before us.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. We have also gone through the orders of the State Commission as well as the District Forum and the Act of United Nations Conference, 1949 on Road and Motor Transport. Upon hearing both the sides, we are of the opinion that it is not a requirement to obtain a fresh licence in India if a person coming to India is holding a valid international driving licence from his country. The treaty which governs this arrangement has also been shown to us and India is a party to the same. United Kingdom is also a party to the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport which had issued that protocol, 'Final Act - Convention on Road Traffic Protocol Concerning Countries or Terrotories at present occupied Protocol on Road Signs and Signals". We have also seen the letter dated 8.9.1997 issued by the High Commissioner of India, Consular Department, India House, Aldwych, London, to Mr. A.P. Korrin, which reads as under :
"Please refer to your letter dated 22.8.1997 regarding validity of AA International Driving Permit. The International Driving Licence issued by AA are valid in India for use for one year."
4. The only plea raised by Mr. K.L. Nandwani, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the licence does not cover driving of motor vehicles which was issued for motor cycles. We have seen the licence and this objection of the Insurance Company is without any substance. The licence itself provides, inter alia :
"Vehicles for which the permit is valid :
A. Motor cycles, with or without a sidecar, invalid carriage and three-wheeled motor vehicles with an unladen weight not exceeding 400 kgs (900 lb).
B. Motor vehicles used for the transport of passengers and comprising in addition to the driver's seat, at most eight seats, or those used for the transport of goods and having a permissible maximum weight not exceeding 3.500 kg. (7.700 lbs). Vehicles in this category may be coupled with a light trailer.
C. Motor Vehicles used for the transport of goods and of which the permissible maximum weight exceeds 3.500 kg. (7.700 lbs). Vehicles in this category may be coupled with a light trailer.
D. Motor vehicles of categories B, C or D as authorised above, with other than a light trailer."
5. Even under the Motor Vehicles Act recognition has been granted to such licences. A reference be made to Sub-clause (3) to proviso to Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under :
"9(3) If the applicant passes such test as may be prescribed by the Central Government, he shall be issued the driving licence :
Provided that no such test shall be necessary where the applicant produces proof to show that -
(a)(i) .................
(ii) ......................
(iii) The applicant holds a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle issued by a Competent Authority of any country outside India subject to the condition that the applicant complies with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 8."
Section 8(3) reads as under :
"8(3) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government and signed by such registered medical practitioner, as the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint for this purpose :
(Provided that no such medical certificate is required for licence to drive a vehicle Other than a transport vehicle)".
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Thus, from the proviso to Section 8(3) it is clear that in the present case no such certificate is required except in the case of a transport vehicle which was not the case here.
7. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the For a below have fallen into an error in accepting the Insurance Company's objection in respect of the international driving licence. Consequently, the order of the State Commission as well as the District Forum are set aside. Since no evidence has been filed to enable us to quantify the amount and as the case did not reach the stage of evidence, this case is, therefore, remanded to District Forum for trial on merits after affording an opportunity to both parties to present their case before the District Forum. The Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.