State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Sh. Bahadur Singh Thagunna on 30 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 201 / 2009
The New India Assurance Company Limited
through Divisional Office at 8/6-7, Astley Hall
Dehradun through its Divisional Manager
Sh. Ruchir Pant S/o Sh. N.D. Pant
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Bahadur Singh Thagunna S/o late Sh. Dev Singh Thagunna
R/o Village and P.O. Kalika, Tehsil Dharchula
District Pitthoragarh
......Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President
C.C. Pant, Member
Dated: 30/09/2010
ORDER
(Per: Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This is insurer's appeal against the order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the District Forum, Pitthoragarh, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 26 of 2007, so as to award compensation of Rs. 29,992/- with simple interest @5% p.a., by way of indemnification of the loss sustained due to accident of insured vehicle No. UA-05-3636 on 30.10.2005. At the time of the accident, insured - vehicle's owner late Sh. Bhupinder Singh was driving the vehicle and he died in the accident. The consumer complaint was filed by the deceased's father, claiming himself to be the only surviving heir of the deceased / beneficiary under the policy of insurance of the vehicle.2
2. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that late Sh. Bhupinder Singh was not having a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The stand taken by the insurance company before the District Forum was, however, not accepted, on the premise that the driving licence of late Sh. Bhupinder Singh was valid upto 22.10.2005 and the same could have been renewed with effect from 23.10.2005 if Sh. Bhupinder Singh were to survive the accident and applied for renewal of the driving licence within the grace period of thirty days. The accident took place after eight days of the expiry of the validity period of the driving licence and considering the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the District Forum rejected the contention of the insurance company that late Sh. Bhupinder Singh was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. In turn, it was held that the insurance company made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim.
3. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for decision on merit.
4. Learned counsel for the insurance company raised the similar question before us to assail the legality and propriety of the order impugned and submitted that Sh. Bhupinder Singh having died in the accident itself, there was no question of his getting his driving licence renewed within a period of thirty days from the date of expiry of validity period of his driving licence, i.e., 22.10.2005. Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provide for issue and renewal of driving licence, in so far as these are relevant for our purpose, read as follows:
"14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. - (1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other 3 provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence.
(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall, - .........................
PROVIDED THAT every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.
15. Renewal of driving licences. - (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry:
PROVIDED THAT in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: .........................................."
5. The proviso to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry. In view of this, the driving licence of late Sh.
Bhupinder Singh having expired on 22.10.2005 and the accident having taken place on 30.10.2005, within a period of thirty days from the expiry of the driving licence, the driving licence continued to be effective and valid and we see no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that on the date of the accident, the driver, late Sh. Bhupinder Singh was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle.
6. Further, Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers a licensing authority to renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of the Act with effect from the date of its expiry. However, proviso to the said Section clearly provides that where an 4 application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. Unfortunately, Sh. Bhupinder Singh had died in the accident itself and by fiction of law, it may also be taken that had Sh. Bhupinder Singh survived the accident, he would have applied for renewal of his driving licence within a period of thirty days of its expiry and on that account also, we would not find any merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance company. The District Forum, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, rightly rejected the stand of the insurance company, to find favour with the contention of the complainant that the above-mentioned provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would indicate that on the date of the accident, Sh. Bhupinder Singh was holding an effective driving licence. In short, the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim on the above ground.
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company also submitted that all the legal representatives of the deceased late Sh. Bhupinder Singh were not impleaded in the consumer complaint and the same was, therefore, defective and should not have been entertained as such for decision on merit. The submission does not carry conviction, in view of the specific averment made by the complainant, the father of the deceased late Sh. Bhupinder Singh that he is the sole heir of the deceased and is the beneficiary under the policy of insurance of the vehicle obtained by his late son.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN) K