State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Maan Kunwar Sinha & Anr. on 31 August, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/15/201
Instituted on : 22.04.2015
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office - Parmanand Bhawan,
Near Rajendra Park Chowk, G.E. Road, Durg,
Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Smt. Maankunwar Sinha, ,
W/o Late Tulsiram Sinha, Aged 46 years,
2. Lukesh Shankar Sinha,
S/o Late Tulsiram Sinha, Aged 21 years,
Both R/o : Deepak Nagar, Durg,
Tehsil and District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondents
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :-
Shri L.K. Joshi, for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for the respondents.
ORDER
Dated : 31/08/2015 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.03.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case // 2 // No.CC/14/184. By the impugned order, the complaint of the appellants (complainants), has been allowed and the appellant (O.P.) has been directed to pay within a period of one month from the date of order a sum of Rs.3,21,750/-, which is 75% of the insurance sum assured Rs.4,29,000/-, otherwise the above amount, would be payable along with interest @ 09% p.a. from the date of order till date of payment. The appellant (O.P.) has further been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the respondent.
2. The brief facts of the complaint of the respondents (complainants) are that Tulsiram Sinha, who was husband of the respondent No.1 (complainant No.1) and father of respondent No.2 (complainant No.2) was owner of vehicle Tata Safari bearing registration No.C.G.13-C-7766 and the said vehicle was insured with the appellant (O.P.) for the period from 26.10.2013 to 25.10.2014 under Private Car Package Policy No.192500/31/2014/8904 and premium for personal accident was taken from the insured. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.5,50,000/- and the insurance was done for Rs.5,50,000/- under Private Car Package Policy. On 04.12.2013, when Tulsiram Sinha was going to Ganiyari from Durg by vehicle Tata Safari bearing registration No.C.G.13-C-7766, the vehicle fell down in Shivnath river, resulting which Tulsiram Sinha died due to drowning and the vehicle was extensively damaged. The matter was firstly // 3 // reported in Police Out Post - Anjora, and thereafter regular Merg Intimation No.183/13 was registered in Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.). The vehicle was taken out from the Shivnath river and the said vehicle was taken to Shivam Motors for repairing work due to extensive damages of the vehicle and water was stored in the engine of the vehicle. Shivam Motor gave estimate for Rs.17,06,600/- inclusive of Rs.87,500/- towards mechanic's charges. The vehicle suffered total loss. The respondents (complainants) gave intimation to the appellant (O.P.) regarding accident on 06.12.2013 and submitted claim form on 07.02.2014 before the appellant (O.P.), but the appellant (O.P.) repudiated the claim of the respondents (complainants) on 02.04.2014 without any justified ground. The respondents (complainant) sent notice to the appellant (O.P.). In spite of obtaining premium amount, the appellant (O.P.) did not pay the compensation, and thus committed deficiency in service. Hence, the respondent (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The appellant (O.P.) filed its written statement and averred that at the time of accident, the deceased Tulsiram Sinha was not having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was being driven by the deceased without possessing valid and effective driving licence, which is clearly violation of the terms and conditions // 4 // of the insurance policy. The respondents (complainants) submitted claim form before the appellant (O.P.) in which driving licence no. of the deceased was mentioned as driving licence no.T/10124/Durg & T/2700/Raipur and the appellant (O.P.) got conducted verification of the said licence through Investigator Shri Krishna Kumar G.R. and it is found that the driving licence was expired on 01.07.2012 and the deceased was not having driving licence on 04.12.2013 which is the date of the accident, therefore, the appellant (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent (complainant), hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensation cost. The appellant (O.P.) further averred the on being received intimation regarding the incident, the appellant (O.P.) got conducted survey through Surveyor Nanda and Nanda Associates and on 19.03.2014 the Surveyor submitted their final survey report and assessed total loss. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,49,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the IDV of the vehicle Rs.5,50,000/- and the salvage value of the vehicle was determined to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. If under the insurance policy any term and condition was not violated, then the respondents (complainants) are entitled for sum of Rs.4,29,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. salvage value from Rs.5,49,000/- but in the instant case the driver of the insured vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and he violated terms and conditions of // 5 // the insurance policy, therefore, the respondents (complainants) are not entitled for getting any compensation from the appellant (O.P.), therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay compensation to the respondent (complainant), as mentioned in the complaint.
5. The respondents (complainants) filed documents. Annexure 1 is claim form, Annexure 2 and Annexure 3 are Estimate issued by Shivam Motors, Bhilai (C.G.), Annexure 4 is Police Inquiry Report, Annexure 5 is Merg Intimation, Annexure 6 is Inquest, Annexure 7 is application for postmortem and post mortem report, Annexure 8 is Registration Certificate Details of vehicle bearing registration No.CG- 13-C-7766, Annexure 9 is Motor Insurance Certificate Cum Policy Schedule Private Car Package Policy - Zone B, Annexure 10 is letter dated 28.01.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to the Shr Lukesh Shankar Sinha, Annexure 11 is letter dated 02.04.2014 sent by the appellant (O.P.) to Shri Lukesh Shankar Sinha, Annexure 12 is notice dated 27.05.2014 sent by Shri Prashant Sinha, Advocate on behalf of the respondents (complainants) to the appellant (O.P.), Annexure 13 is reply sent by Assistant Public Information Officer, Additional Regional Transport Office, Durg (C.G.) to First Appellate Authority, // 6 // Shri K.K. Agrawal, Additional Collector, Durg, Annexure 14 is intimation regarding non-cognizable offence, Annexure 15 is driving liicence of Tulsi Ram Sinha, Annexure 16 is reply sent by Assistant Public Information Officer, Additional Regional Transport Office, Durg (C.G.) to First Appellate Authority, Shri K.K. Agrawal, Additional Collector, Durg.
6. The appellant (O.P.) has also filed documents. Ex. D-1 is Motor Insurance Certificate Cum Policy Schedule Private Car Package Policy
- Zone B and terms and conditions of the Private Car Package Policy, Ex. D-2 is letter dated 18.03.2014 sent by Public Information Officer and Additional Regional Transport Officer, Durg (C.G.) to Shri Krishna Kumar G.R., Bhilai (C.G.), Ex. D-3 is copy of the licence register relating to licence holder Tulsiram Sinha, Ex. D-4 is copy of driving licence of Tulsiram Sinha.
7. Shri L.K. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that Tulsiram Sinha, who was driving the vehicle did not hold the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, the respondent (complainant) is not entitled to get any compensation from the appellant (O.P.) and learned District Forum has wrongly awarded compensation on non-standard basis to the respondent (complainant). The District Forum also held in the impugned order that at the time of accident, the deceased did not hold // 7 // valid and effective driving licenct, but learned District Forum, awarded compensation on non-standard basis to the respondent (complainant), which is against the law and the impugned order passed by the District Forum is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on orders of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Alok Waghe vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, III (2014) CPJ 508 (NC) and Oriental Insurance Company & Seema, III (2014) CPJ 112 (NC).
8. Shri R.K. Bhawnani & Shri Prashant Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (complainants), have supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned District Forum, has rightly accepted the claim of the respondent (complainant). They further argued that Tulsiram Sinha, was possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, does not suffer from any inherent jurisdictional error, hence it does not call for any interference by this Commission.
9. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
// 8 //
10. In the instant case, the respondents (complainants) filed copy of driving licence of deceased Tulsiram Sinha, which is marked as Annexure 15. In document Annexure 15, it is mentioned that Licence No.T/10124/Durg was issued in favour of Tulsi Ram Sinha authorizing him to drive Motor Cycle With Gear, Light Motor Vehicle, Heavy Goods Vehicle and the driving licence was valid for the period upto 04.01.2009. Another copy of the driving licence has been filed in which it is mentioned that Duplicate Licence Issued , Original date of issue 01.10.1984 and Original Licence No.T/2700/RPR and it was renewed on 05.01.2006. It appears that initially driving licence No.T/2700/RPR was issued from R.T.O. Raipur and thereafter the driving licence No.T/10124/Durg was issued from R.T.O. Durg. Annexure 16 is reply sent by Assistant Public Information Officer, Additional Regional Transport Office, Durg (C.G.) to First Appellate Authority, Shri K.K. Agrawal, Additional Collector, Durg, in which it is mentioned thus :-
^^pwafd fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds }kjk yk;lsal cuokus gsrq fu/kkZfjr izi= ,oa 'kqYd ,oa nLrkost ¼mez ,oa fuokl laca/kh½ tek djus ij fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds mijkar f'k{kkFkhZ yk;lsal N% ekg ds iwoZ ,oa ,d ekg Ik'pkr~ iqu% fu/kkZfjr izi=] 'kqYd ,oa nLrkost ¼mez ,oa fuokl laca/kh½ dk;kZy; vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqrhdj.k mijkar okgu pkyu vuqKfIr muds mez vFkkZr~ tUe frfFk ds vuqlkj 20 o"kZ ds fy, izk;osV yk;lsal tkjh fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mDr yk;lsal dh E;kn vof/k lekIr gksus ij iqu% fu/kkZfjr izi= ,oa 'kqYd ,oa nLrkost izLrqr djus ij 5 o"kZ ds fy, izk;osV yk;lsal uohuhdj.k fd;k tkrk gSA ¼eksVj Oghdy ,DV ds vuqlkj fd;k tkrk gS½** // 9 //
11. In para 11 of the impugned order, the District Forum has observed that the deceased was possessing valid driving licence upto year 2009. The copy of the said driving licence has been obtained by the respondent (complainant) from the concerned office under Right To Information Act and if actually till date of the accident the deceased was having valid and effective driving licence, then the respondent (complainant) could have been given information upto the said date by the concerned department, but the information under Right to Information Act to the effect that on the date of accident the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence, was not given, therefore, it can be held that on the date of accident the insured was having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, it is appropriate to award 75% of Rs.4,29,000/- on non-standard basis to the respondent (complainant.).
12. In Ishwar Chandra And Others vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others, (2007) 10 Supreme Court Cases 650, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :-
"9. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. The accident took // 10 // place 28-4-1995. As on the said date, the renewal application had not been filed, the driver did not have a valid licence on the date when the vehicle met with the accident.
13. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sushil Jain, 2015 (2) CPR 263 (NC); Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"5. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the driving licence of Rajesh Jindal who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident had expired as on the date of accident. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant fairly admitted during the course of hearing that the respondent did not apply for its renewal within the grace period of 30 days. In view of this, the driver of the vehicle admittedly did not hold any valid and effective driving licence while driving the vehicle. We have perused the original driving licence produced by the respondent but we did not find any mention of the date of renewal. In view of this admitted position, this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Ishwar Chand's case (supra). The cases relied by the counsel for the respondent cannot provide any relief to the respondent in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in which the ratio in the case of Swaran Singh has also been considered but not followed. Both the fora below obviously committed grave error in ignoring the specific provisions of section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act while admitting the case of the respondent and returning their findings in his favour. In respect of the claim of the insured himself, the issue as to whether the driver of the vehicle was disqualified from holding a driving licence or driving is no longer relevant keeping in view the ruling given by the Apex Court in Ishwar Chandra's case. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and must be set aside. Accordingly, we // 11 // allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned orders of the State Commission and the District Forum.
14. In Karnail Singh v. United India Insurance Company Limited, II (2010) CPJ 104 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Driver driving vehicle without valid licence, in violation of terms and conditions of policy, repudiation of claim by insurer is justified."
15. In Thomas Mathew vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II (2006) CPJ 309 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission, has observed thus :-
"6. In the aforementioned circumstances, the State Commission committed no error in returning the finding that there was no valid licence with the driver to drive the vehicle as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act on 14.5.1996. The State Commission has also considered the provisions of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has rightly concluded that even if benefit of 30 days from 12.4.1996 is given, in case he had applied for renewal of licence, even then on the date of accident, i.e, 14.5.1996, the driver did not have any valid driving licence, thus, falling under the General Exception clause of the policy which mandates the driver to hold an effective and valid driving licence failing which the claim was not to be payable."
16. In M/s. MRH Associates Through its Partner, Mr. Harsh Kumar Handa vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Branch Manager & Anr., 2015 (1) CPR 137 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "If driver of vehicle is not holding a valid and effective licence for driving vehicle in question, it shall be a serious // 12 // violation of statutory requirement under Motor Vehicles Act as also conditions of insurance policy which would vitiate contract of insurance and as such insurance company would be entitled to repudiate claim."
17. In the instant case, the deceased Tulsiram Sinha, who was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.13-C-7766, did not hold valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The vehicle was being driven by the deceased Tulsiram Sinha in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the respondents (complainants), are not entitled to get any compensation, even on non standard basis from the appellant (O.P.).
18. Therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and must be set aside. Accordingly we allow the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P.) and set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2015, passed by the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondents (complainants) also stands dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal. (Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (NarendraGupta) President Member Member Member /08/2015 /08/2015 /08/2015 /08/2015