State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Limited vs Ashok Rana And Another on 4 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.132/2011
Date
of Decision: 04.05.2012
National
Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Himland Hotel, Circular Road,
Shimla-171 001, H.P.
.. Appellant
Versus
1. Shri Ashok Rana son of Shri Amar Singh Rana, R/o Village Bassi, Post
Office Choltara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi,
H.P., through his Special Power of Attorney Shri Amar
Singh Rana son of late Shri Govind
Ram Rana, R/o Village Kothi
Bassi, Post Office Choltara,
Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.
2. Motor Registering and
Licensing Authority, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.
Respondents
Coram
Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
Yes.
For the Appellant: Mrs. Seema
Sood, Advocate
For the
Respondent No.1: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate
For the
Respondent No.2: Mr. Giri Raj Singh, Dy. D.A.
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant National Insurance Company Limited is aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2011 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, Camp at Sunder Nagar, whereby a complaint, under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, filed against it by respondent Ashok Rana, has been allowed and it (appellant) has been ordered to pay a sum of `46,301/-, being an amount of money equivalent to 75% of loss assessed by the Surveyor, on account of insurance claim.
2. Respondent Ashok Rana owned a Maruti 800 car, bearing registration No.HP-28-3233, which he got insured with the appellant for the period from 15.06.2008 to 14.06.2009. The car met with an accident on 05.06.2009, when it was being driven by one Mehar Singh son of Shri Bhagat Ram in Kangra District. Vehicle was badly damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the appellant. A Surveyor deputed by the appellant assessed the loss at `68,263/-. Appellant, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that Mehar Singh, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the car, which was a light motor vehicle.
3. Respondent then filed a complaint, under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking issuance of a direction to the appellant to pay the insurance money.
4. Appellant contested the complaint. It took the plea that the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Learned Forum observed that Mehar Singh, who was driving the vehicle possessed a licence to drive a motorcycle with gear and medium and heavy transport vehicles and that the licence which he possessed, stood renewed only for driving a motorcycle, when the accident took place and that its renewal for heavy transport vehicle and medium transport vehicle had been carried out, after the occurrence of accident. Learned Forum also made a reference to section 7 of Repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, under which the licence had been obtained by Mehar Singh, in the year, 1980 and observed that said provision presumed a person, passing the test for licence for heavy transport vehicle, to be competent to drive a medium transport vehicle and light motor vehicle.
However, while concluding, the Learned District Forum observed that present case was required to be treated as non-standard claim case, in-accordance with instructions issued by General Insurance Corporation and consequently, ordered the payment of money equivalent to 75% of damage assessed by the Surveyor.
5. Appellant is aggrieved by order of Learned District Forum and has, therefore, filed the present appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is true that sub section (7) of section 7 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, under which the licence was issued in favour of Mehar Singh, who was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident, provided that a person, who qualified the test for obtaining licence for heavy transport vehicle, was to be deemed to have passed the test for obtaining a licence for medium transport vehicle or light transport vehicle, but in the year, 1978, an amendment had been carried out in section 7 of the said Act of 1939, whereby sub section 7(A) was inserted which reads as follows:-
(7A) 9[ Notwithstanding anything contained' in subsection (7), any person, who has a valid driving licence granted before the commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1978 , authorising him to drive a heavy motor vehicle or, as the case may be, a medium motor vehicle, shall, for the period specified in such licence, be Permitted to drive-
(a) any heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, or light motor vehicle, where the licence is for driving any heavy motor vehicle;
(b) any medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, or light motor vehicle, where the licence is for driving any medium motor vehicle.]
7. Licence was obtained by Mehar Singh in the year, 1980 or say after the aforesaid amendment of 1978 was carried out. A reading of above reproduced sub section 7(A) of Section 7 of the Act of 1939 makes it plainly clear that Legislature in its wisdom, provided by implication, that a person possessing the licence for a heavy transport vehicle was not authorized to drive medium transport vehicle or a light motor vehicle and similarly a person holding a licence to drive medium vehicle was not authorized to drive a light motor vehicle. Therefore, even on the assumption that a person passing a test for heavy transport vehicle is to be treated as qualified for a licence for light transport vehicle or medium transport vehicle, holder of a licence for heavy transport vehicle or medium transport vehicle issued after amendment of 1978, by which sub section 7(A) was added to section 7, is not authorized to drive a light motor vehicle or light transport vehicle. Licence in favour of Mehar Singh was issued in 1980, or say after the aforesaid Amendment of 1978.
8. Learned District Forum relying upon Amalendu Sahoo versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 9 SC, has treated the claim as non-standard and ordered the payment of 75% of the amount assessed as damages by the Surveyor. Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No.4055 of 2010, titled New India Assurance Company Ltd., versus Meera Banolta, decided on 11.04.2011, has distinguished the aforesaid judgment of the Honble Supreme Court taking the view that breach of the condition regarding driving licence is a fundamental and material breach of law and in the case of such a breach of law, insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. In the said case before the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, also the vehicle was light transport vehicle and the driver was possessing a licence to drive only a light motor vehicle.
9. In view of the above stated position, appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and consequently, the complaint filed by respondent-complainant is dismissed.
10. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 04, 2012 *dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?