State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Malkiat Kaur on 11 December, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.519 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 27.05.2008.
Date of Decision: 11.12.2012.
United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Leela Bhawan
Market, Patiala through its Manager.
(Through its Manager (Legal), United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional
Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Malkiat Kaur wife of Sh. Amar Singh, Resident of Deep Nagar, Patiala.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
24.05.2007 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
United India Insurance Company Limited, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 24.05.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Smt. Malkiat Kaur, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, asserting that she owner of truck bearing registration no.PB-11- G-9611 and the same was insured with the appellant from 31.03.2006 to 30.03.2007 vide insurance policy/cover note no.584323 and full premium was First Appeal No.519 of 2008 2 paid. The said truck i.e. Tata-407 met with an accident on 02.03.2006 and the respondent informed the appellant immediately about the accident and submitted her claim regarding the loss and supplied all the necessary documents. The appellant repudiated the claim vide letter dated 28.04.2006 on the ground that the driver of the said vehicle was having the driving licence to drive LTV vehicle only and was not competent to drive the truck Tata-407.
3. The respondent approached the appellant again the told that the driver of truck Tata-407 was holding a proper and valid licence, but no heed was paid. The respondent file an application before the District Transport Officer, Patiala to know whether a person holding a licence of LMV vehicle is competent to drive the vehicle Tata-407 or not, and the District Transport Officer, Patiala gave the clarification that a person, holding LMV licence is competent to drive the vehicle make Tata-407. The said verification was shown by the respondent to the appellant and requested to release the claim, but all in vain and ultimately, served a legal notice dated 25.05.2006, but of no use. This amounts to deficiency in service on the appellant and the respondent suffered lot of mental tension and physical harassment.
4. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to pay Rs.80,000/- to the respondent i.e. Rs.30,000/- as damages suffered by the said truck and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
5. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant, it was admitted that Tata-407 bearing no.PB-11-G-9611 was insured for the period 31.03.2005 to 30.03.2006 and premium of Rs.6655/- was charged from the respondent. It was admitted that as per the intimation dated 03.03.2006 received on behalf of the respondent, the said truck met with an accident on 02.03.2006. The respondent submitted the claim form dated 03.03.2006 and Sh. R.K. Mangla was deputed for spot survey and M/s Bansal Associates for final survey. Both the surveyors submitted detailed reports dated 17.03.2006 and 27.03.2006 respectively. As per reports of both the surveyors, the driver was having licence for LMV only and was not authorized to drive transport First Appeal No.519 of 2008 3 vehicle. It was submitted that the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 28.04.2006 on the grounds that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. Receipt of legal notice was admitted and its reply dated 26.05.2006 was sent to the respondent vide registered post. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
7. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that as per the definition of 'light motor vehicle', the disputed truck Tata-407 falls under the definition of 'light motor vehicle', unladen weight of which is 2920 kgs. The respondent by filing the application Ex.C-5 got the licence of the driver verified from the office of the District Transport Office, Patiala and got the information that the person holding the licence of LMV vehicle is competent to drive the Tata-407 and the information was supplied vide endorsement of DTO, Patiala on application Ex.C-5 and on the date of accident, the driver was holding the valid and effective driving licence and the repudiation is not justified. The complaint was partly allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.10,290/- to the respondent with 9% p.a. from the date of two months after the filing of the surveyor report till payment and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.05.2007, the appellant has come up in appeal.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. Neither the counsel for the respondent nor anybody else appeared at the time of arguments.
First Appeal No.519 of 2008 4
11. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the licence of the driver of the vehicle was for LMV vehicle and he was not competent to drive the transport vehicle. The driver was not holding valid licence to drive LTV vehicle i.e. Tata-407 and the claim was rightly repudiated. It was further contended that U/s 10 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, light motor vehicles and transport vehicles fall in two different categories and the claim was rightly repudiated and the order of the District Forum is against the settled proposition of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Prabhu Lal", I (2008) CPJ-1(SC);
"Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Angad Kol & Ors.", 2009 (2) RCR (Civil)- 419(SC); "Sir Chhotu Ram Senior Secondary School, Village Rasulpur, Yamuna Nagar Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2010 (4) RCR (Civil) 260(P & H); "United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Arvind Kumar Rajak", III (2008) CPJ-191(NC).
12. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and minutely perused the entire record and case law.
13. In this case, the vehicle Tata-407 bearing registration no.PB-11- G-9611 was insured with the appellant from 31.03.2006 to 30.03.2007 and the same met with an accident on 02.03.2006. The respondent lodged the claim with the appellant and the claim was repudiated on the grounds that the driver of the said vehicle was having driving licence to drive LTV vehicle only and was not competent to drive Tata-407.
14. The only question to be decided in the present case is whether a person, holding a licence for LMV vehicle, is competent to drive the vehicle Tata-407?
15. The respondent has placed on file, the Goods Carriage Permit for Hire or Reward Ex.C-8 and as per this, the type was 'LTV/open truck' and the Pay Load was 2380 kgs. The appellant wrote letter Ex.C-5 to District Transport Officer, Patiala, seeking information whether the person, holding First Appeal No.519 of 2008 5 LMV driving licence can drive Tata-407 and the District Transport Officer, Patiala opined that as per Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, light motor vehicle means, "a transport vehicle or Omni bus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7,500 kgs".
16. The District Forum has relied upon the report of the District Transport Officer, Patiala and the said report is nothing, but the reproduction of the definition of 'light motor vehicle', as provided U/s 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, but the observation made by the District Forum on the basis of the said report, is not in accordance with the law. In case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Angad Kol & Ors.", (supra), similar question arose and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para-10 of the judgment observed as follows:-
"10. The distinction between a 'light motor vehicle, and a 'transport vehicle' is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a 'transport vehicle' and a 'passenger vehicle' can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of any effective licence to drive a 'transport vehicle' whereas in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years".
17. In Para-16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observes as follows:-
"16. Had the driving licence had been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years.".
18. Copy of the driving licence of Ram Singh, who was driving the vehicle in question, has been produced as Ex.C-10. After the amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act, the distinction between the 'light motor vehicle' and the 'transport vehicle' has been clearly defined. A transport vehicle may be a light First Appeal No.519 of 2008 6 motor vehicle, but for driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be maintained. In the present case, the licence was admittedly for LMV and there was no endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. As per the Goods Carriage Permit for Hire and Reward Ex.C-8, type of vehicle was 'light transport vehicle/open truck' and the permit was issued for carrying goods. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Prabhu Lal (supra), held that a driver, holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle is not entitled to ply heavy motor vehicle/transport vehicle, in the absence of necessary endorsement.
19. Similar law was laid in 'Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Angad Kol & Ors.' (supra) "Sir Chhotu Ram Senior Secondary School, Village Rasulpur, Yamuna Nagar Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", (supra) and "United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Arvind Kumar Rajak", (supra).
20. In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the driver of Tata-407 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive this transport vehicle and he was not competent, as there was no endorsement to drive the transport vehicle on his driving licence for driving light motor vehicle. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 24.05.2007 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
22. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.8917/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
23. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.12.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No.519 of 2008 7
24. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member December 11, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)