National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kiranjeet Kaur @ Kiranjit Kaur on 9 August, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2213 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/04/2017 in Appeal No. 466/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH
IA/10407/2017 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LEGAL VERTICAL 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110055 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KIRANJEET KAUR @ KIRANJIT KAUR WD/O. HARPREET SINGH, R/O. VILLAGE BURJ (BURJ MANSA) TEHSIL TALWANDISABOO, DISTRICT-BATHINDA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2214 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/04/2017 in Appeal No. 531/2016 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH
IA/10407/2017 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LEGAL VERTICAL 2E/9, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110055 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KIRANJEET KAUR @ KIRANJIT KAUR WD/O. HARPREET SINGH, R/O. VILLAGE BURJ (BURJ MANSA) TEHSIL TALWANDISABOO, DISTRICT-BATHINDA PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. ABHISHEK KUMAR For the Respondent :
Dated : 09 Aug 2017 ORDER
O R D E R (ORAL)
By these two Revision Petitions, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), calls in question the correctness and legality of a common order dated 5.4.2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No.466 and 531 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the common order dated 22.4.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (for short "the District Forum") in C.C. No.148 and 149 of 2015. By the said orders, while accepting the Complaints filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim made by the Respondent for indemnification of the loss suffered by her on account of the damage caused to the vehicle in question, viz., Mahindra Bolero Camper Pick Up, which had met with an accident on 9.6.2015, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Respondent a sum of ₹3,64,500/- towards the loss suffered on account of the damage to the vehicle, along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of accident till realization and costs, quantified at ₹5,000/-. In so far as the claim of the Respondent under the personal accident cover, which had also been repudiated by the Insurance Company, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Respondent the assured sum of ₹2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of occurrence till realization along with costs, quantified at ₹5,000/-.
The sole ground on which the afore-noted claims were repudiated by the Insurance Company was that the person, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, was not authorized to drive the vehicle of the specific class or description, required under a valid driving licence. In nut-shell, the stand of the Insurance Company was that since the vehicle in question was a Light Transport Vehicle (LTV), the driver had the licence to drive only a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)(Non-Transport).
Dealing with the said ground for repudiation of the claim and affirming the view taken by the District Forum, the State Commission has held as follows :
"The Opposite Party placed on ground driving licence of deceased Harpreet Singh as Ex.OP-5. A perusal of the same would reveal that the deceased was authorized to drive MCWG/LMV(NT) and tractor only. Therefore, the deceased was authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport). Admittedly, the gross vehicle weight of Mahindra Pick Up in question is 2880 kilograms and hence it falls under the definition of 'Light Motor Vehicle'. The District Forum has rightly relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 28.8.2015 passed in FAO No.135 of 2009, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced in the impugned order. The District Forum has also rightly held that since the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is recorded 2880 kilograms by the Surveyor in his report Ex.OP-14, which is not exceeding 7500 kilograms, therefore, the vehicle in question bearing registration No.PB-10-EH3943 was LMV and to drive it, deceased Harpreet Singh was having valid DL. We do not find any flaw in this finding of the District Forum."
Thus, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that the person driving the subject vehicle was authorized to drive the said vehicle.
The controversy, whether a driver holding a licence to drive 'Light Motor Vehicle' was additionally required to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, has now been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's in its latest decision dated 3.7.2017, in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 [Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.). In the said decision, on a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with copious reference to several decisions on the point, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :
"Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and Rules which we have discussed."
In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and therefore, as held in the afore-noted decision, merely because the licence did not have endorsement to drive LMV (Transport), the claim could not be repudiated on the ground of invalid licence. Hence, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Fora below, warranting our interference in the Revisional jurisdiction.
Consequently, both the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER