State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ravinder Kumar Jain vs Future General India Insurance Company ... on 4 September, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1424 of 2012
Date of institution:19.10.2012
Date of Decision :04.09.2015
Ravinder Kumar Jain son of Shri Gian Chand Jain, resident of 111,
Maya Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.
....Appellant
Versus
1. Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Corporate
Office 001, Trade Plaza Ground Floor, 414, Veer Sevarkar Marg,
Prabhoderi, Mumbai-400025.
2. The Manager, Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited,
Sandhu Towers, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
........ Respondent
First Appeal against order dated
29.08.2012 of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Nimanyu Gautam, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate
Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) against the impugned order dated 29.08.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, FA No 1424 of 2012 2 Ludhiana (hereinafter as "District Forum"), in CC No. 788 of 2011, vide which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against OPs on the averments that the complainant as the owner of Chevrolet Captive Model 2010 bearing registration No.PB-10CW-3800 and same was insured with OP vide policy No.0726317 valid from 12.05.2010 to 11.05.2011. Namit Jain is the son of complainant, who is holding valid driving license No.204461 issued on 24.03.2000 valid up to 23.03.2020. On 13.02.2010, the son of complainant alongwith his wife his son and other close relatives was coming from Delhi to Ludhiana and the vehicle was being driven by Namit Jain son of complainant at a normal speed when it met with an accident near power house, Thola Majra. The matter was reported to the police of P.S.Shahbad Markanda and DDR was got registered with said police station and the matter was also brought to the notice of OPs and the claim was lodged vide claim No.CV091171. Surveyor was appointed by OPs to inspect the vehicle at the spot and to assess the loss. He further pleaded that as per instructions of OPs the vehicle was sent by the complainant to M/s.Padam Motors, Ludhiana for getting same repaired and Rs.9,18,330/- was spent on the repair of the vehicle. A claim was lodged by complainant with OPs for release of the amount spent by him on repair of the vehicle, as per rules. Despite repeated request of complainant, OPs failed to settle the claim of complainant and to release the amount on the false plea that Namit Jain, who was driving FA No 1424 of 2012 3 the vehicle at the time of accident, was not holding valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question. Whereas Namit Jain was holding valid driving license and he could drive any non commercial motor whose weight was less than 7500 kg which fell within the definition of LMV. OPs had illegally and arbitrary had not released the amount of complainant despite repeated requests and despite service of legal notice dated 05.10.2011. Such an act and conduct of OPs amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint with a prayer that OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,18,330/- along with a interest @ 18% along with compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply in which they took certain preliminary objections that the present complaint was not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed in limine. The vehicle in question was insured with the Op subject to the terms and conditions contained in the policy No.2010-V0726317-FPV valid form 12.05.2010 till 11.05.2011. The said vehicle was registered with the registering Authority Motor Vehicles Ludhiana in the Class of vehicle Jeep(LMV). The said vehicle met with an accident on 13.12.2010 and on receiving the claim, the same was entrusted to Mr.A.K.Chhatwal, Automobile Engineer to conduct the spot survey of the vehicle, and he submitted the report on 15.12.2010. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted to IRDA licensed surveyor G.S. Sohal and Co. Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who submitted motor survey report dated 24.06.2011 vide which the loss was assessed at FA No 1424 of 2012 4 Rs.6,23,292/- and it was revealed that complainant is son was driving the insured vehicle without a valid and effective driving license. OP vide its letter dated 08.02.2011 requested the complainant to submit a valid driving license of Mr. Namit Jain but the complainant had failed to submit till date. He was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the insured vehicle. He was having a driving license authorized to drive only motorcycle/Motorcar, whereas, the insured vehicle was registered as a Jeep (LMV). It was further pleaded that OP through their advocate had filed an application to verify the license No.204461 and also filed an application under Right to Information in the office of District Transport Office Ludhiana seeking information. If a person holding driving licence for motor car/motor cycle can drive LMV. The Information Officer replied to the said RTI vide ref. No.2616.DTO/LDH dated 27.06.2011 stating "a person holding a driving license for Motor Cycle and Motor Car cannot drive a LMV vehicle. Thus, the complainant was driving the LMV in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. On merits, it was admitted that vehicle was insured with the Ops subject to terms and conditions contained in the policy No.0726317 valid from 12.05.2010 till 11.05.2011. It was further stated that Namit Jain was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle. As per the information received by the Office of DTO Ludhiana under RTI. It was stated that a person holding driving licence for motor cycle and motor car cannot drive LMV. The claim of the complainant was legally repudiated in view of the information from the office of DTO FA No 1424 of 2012 5 Ludhiana and breach of provision of Motor Vehicle Act and terms of the policy and denied the other averments.
4. Both the parties tendered their evidence/documents. Complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, along with documents Ex.C1 to C13. Complainant again tendered his affidavit Ex.CW3/A and closed his evidence. To rebut the evidence OP tendered the affidavit of Sh. Ved Tripathi, Senior Executive Legal, alongwith other documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R14 and closed his evidence.
5. After hearing the argument and gone through the record the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, complainant filed the appeal on the ground that the District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint of complainant on the ground that Namit Jain was not holding a valid driving license. Whereas, he was having a valid driving license to drive LMV vehicle at the time of the accident as the DTO Clerk has stated in his cross examination (RW1) in which, he has stated that he has seen the original license issued in the name of Namit Jain and the holder of this license can drive LMV vehicle and not commercial vehicle and this fact was ignored by the District Forum.
7. We have heard the arguments of both the parties.
8. Counsel for complainant contended that as per Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act the definition of LMV is as under:-
"light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or FA No 1424 of 2012 6 tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms.
As per this section the vehicle whose weight is less than 7500 kgs is a light motor vehicle. In the present case the gross weight of the vehicle is 1820 kgs, which is far less than form7500 kgs and thus vehicle in question falls in the category of LMV (non transport).
9. However, counsel of OP contended that it is settled principal of law that the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector cannot over ride provision of Motor Vehicle Act and further he cannot interpret the motor car as LMV without placing on record any document. The record reveals that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has appeared as witness of complainant and has furnished affidavit Ex.CW3/A. The record reveals that he is not licencing authority under the provision of Motor Vehicle Act Information was sought from the authority who issued the licence. The licence was issued by DTO Ludhiana who has given verification Ex.R-4 vide which he has verified that Namit Jain was holding driving licence for Motor Cycle and Motor Car only from 24.03.2000 to 23.03.2020 as per the office Record. He further stated that the insured vehicle was registered as jeep, LMV by the office of DTO Ludhiana as Ex.R-1. The driver who holds driving licence of LMV can drive this kind of vehicle. Complainant son was issued the licence Ex.C-3 on 02.04.2012 and on the basis of this endorsement he was competent to drive the LMV (NT).
10. At the time of accident son of complainant was driving LMV vehicle. The question for discussion before us is whether the son of FA No 1424 of 2012 7 complainant was having this kind of licence at the time of accident. As per the evidence produced in this case it shows that accident took place on 13.02.2010 and son of complainant got the endorsement of LMV on 02.04.2012. It mean that at the time of accident the son of complainant was not having a valid driving licence to drive LMV. Therefore, OP rightly repudiated the claim and there is no deficiency on their part. They have also placed judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimal Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., versus Dashoda Devi and others, 2010 ACJ 2207, in which it was held that driver had licence to drive light motor vehicle and he was driving a truck whose unladen weight did not exceed 7500 kg and as such a light motor vehicle. Same view taken in judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Jeet Alias Ajit Singh and another versus Poonam and others in FA No.1087 of 2006 dated 18.09.2006, these judgment are not applicable to the facts of the case as in those cases the driver was holding the LMV driving licence whereas in this case the driver get the licence for LMV after the accident.
11. We are of the opinion that the District Forum has rightly appreciated on the record that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle of the complainant was not having a valid driving licence. Therefore, Ops were justified to repudiate the claim.
12. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the District Forum and the same is hereby affirmed.
13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
FA No 1424 of 2012 8
14. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member September 04, 2015 PK/-