State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nic Ltd. vs Smt. Geeta Chauhan on 22 May, 2008
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Appeal No. 412/2007 Date of Decision 22.05.2008. National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Himland Hotel, Circular Road, Shimla through its Asstt. Manager. . Appellant. Versus Smt. Geeta Chauhan W/o Sh. Vishwajit Chauhan R/o Vill. Shawat PO Beergarh, Tehsil Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla, HP . Respondent. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether Approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellant. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) Vehicle bearing registration No. HP-06-3535 was owned by Sh. Vishwajit Chauhan husband of the respondent. It met with accident on 29.10.2004 at Handu Morh, Kotgarh, Tehsil Kumarsain, Distt.
Shimla, HP. It was admittedly insured in the sum of Rs. 2,22,252/-. Learned counsel for the parties were not at variance that it met with accident within a month of its purchase.
2. When her claim was not settled respondent preferred complaint No. 138/2005. This was allowed on 27.2.2007 by the District Forum below directing the appellant to pay the sum insured i.e. Rs. 2,22,252/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, (13.6.2005) till realization as well as costs of Rs. 3500/-. Hence this appeal.
3. Mr. Thakur learned counsel for the appellant by referring to the documents on record pointed out that driver at the time of accident was having a learners driving licence, therefore, he was not authorized to have driven the vehicle, unless sign L was appropriately displayed on front as well as on the rear side of the vehicle. And also a duly licensed person was also there who could control the vehicle and guide the learner-driver. Further according to Mr. Thakur there is no such material to suggest that the driver was being guided by anyone and or some instructor who could control the vehicle and guide the husband of the respondent, when he was driving the same under a learners driving licence.
4. We may point out that under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 learners licence is a good licence, as it is issued under law. Therefore submission of Mr. Thakur that the same has no existence in law can neither be accepted, nor can be supported by anything. At this stage he placed reliance on the decision of the National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Yashwant Ghatge, I (1996) CPJ 276 (NC). Suffice it to say in this behalf that, this judgment runs counter to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court dealing with the learners licence in Mahamooda & others Vs. United Insurance Co. Ltd. & others, (2004) 13 SCC 684.
Observations made in paras 93 and 94 by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 support this view.
5. Faced with this situation Mr. Verma learned counsel for the respondent submitted that at the time of accident, no doubt husband of the respondent was on the wheel and was holding only learners driving licence, but he was being instructed as well as guided by one Sh. Meena Ram who was holding an effective and valid driving licence. As such according to Mr. Verma this repels the contention of Mr. Thakur that no duly licensed person was accompanying the driver who was on the wheel with a learners driving licence. If this was the factual situation, unless it finds support from the record of the complaint file like copy of the licence as well as the affidavit of the said person. i.e. Sh. Meena Ram, Thus no benefit can be derived by the respondent from the fact that Meena Ram was allegedly sitting with the driver holding learners driving licence at the time of accident. A perusal of the record file shows that this is a case of no evidence in this behalf, accordingly this plea is rejected.
6. From the narration of the above extracted facts it is evident that this is a clear cut case of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy including limitation as to its use. So even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that Sh. Menna Ram was there and was guiding the husband of the respondent, still there is no material to suggest that he had been duly authorized under law to drive the said vehicle as such this plea is rejected.
7. The whole thrust of the case of the appellant is that the terms and conditions of the policy having been violated including limitations as to its use this appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. Once we have accepted this submission, we feel that this case needs to be dealt with by treating the claim as non standard one, because of what has been said hereinabove. And for taking this view we place reliance on 2 decisions of the National Commission in the case of Kesarban Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2000) NCJ (NC) 632 and in the case of Poly Mat India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors., 2000 CCJ 64 (NC), besides decisions of this Commission, after following the aforesaid decisions of the National Commission and violation of the warranty/condition of the policy having been duly established, the claims were settled as non standard claim.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion we feel that the impugned order deserves to be modified and thus amount i.e. Rs. 2,22,252/- needs to be reduced by 25%. Ordered accordingly.
9. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion while partly allowing this appeal it is ordered that now the appellant is liable to pay and the respondent is entitled to get only Rs. 1,66,689/- alongwith interest at the rate and from the date as well as cost as allowed by the District Forum below. Subject to this modification appeal stands finally disposed of.
All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost.
Shimla.
22nd May, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Saroj Sharma), Member.
d.kZ*