National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs S. Amirtharaj on 26 July, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3867 OF 2006 (From the order dated 13.07.2006 in First Appeal No. 734 of 2003 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai) National Insurance Company Ltd. 37-C, S. N. High Road Tirunelveli Junction Through its Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. 4th Floor, Jeevan Bharati Building 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi- 110001 ... Petitioner Versus S. Amirtharaj S/o Somasundaram Pillai R/o 15-A, Pudu Amman Koil Street Tachanallur Tirunelveli 627358 Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER For the Petitioner For the Respondents : Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Joy Basu, Advocate : Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Advocate DATED: 26th July, 2012 O R D E R
PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER
1. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the revision petition, the delay is condoned.
2. This revision petition has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd., which was opposite party, against the order dated 13.7.2006 passed by the Chennai State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai ( State Commission for short).
3. The facts leading to the revision petition are as follows:-
The respondent herein is the original complainant.
He had insured with the opposite party his 1993 model tanker lorry for the period from 8.6.2001 to 7.6.2002.
The vehicle met with an accident on 13.10.2001 and got extensively damaged. On being informed, the opposite partys surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage. According to the complainant, he had spent Rs.98,612/- towards repair charges and the amount spent in towing the vehicle. The Surveyor however, assessed the damage of Rs.64,214/-. The Surveyor also stated in his report that the vehicle was designed to carry petroleum products, which were classified as hazardous goods but at the time of accident, the driver of the vehicle did not possess the licence valid for driving a vehicle carrying hazardous goods. There was thus violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. Taking into consideration this aspect, the insurance company repudiated the claim and hence the complaint came to be filed by the respondent. On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum vide its order dated 26.3.2003 allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay 75% of the claim of Rs.98,612/-, to be verified by the complainant on non-standard basis.
4. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the opposite party-insurance company challenged the same before the State Commission by filing an appeal. The State Commission vide its impugned order, modified the order of the District Forum by directing that instead of 75% of Rs.98,612/-, the complainant would be entitled to 75% of the surveyors estimate of Rs. 64,214/-. Rest of the order of the District Forum was upheld. Thus, vide its impugned order, the State Commission accepted the appeal of the insurance company in part.
5. Not satisfied with the impugned order, the opposite party-insurance company has approached the National Commission through the present revision petition.
6. We have heard Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner-insurance company and Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Advocate for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the lorry in question was permitted to carry only petroleum products which are classified as hazardous goods. It is also not in dispute that the driver of the vehicle was authorised to drive only heavy motor vehicles and not authorised to drive any transport vehicle or heavy goods vehicle with hazardous material.
Since these facts came to the notice from the final surveyors report, the petitioner- company repudiated the claim on account of violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 3 and 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act make it mandatory, first, for the driver to hold effective driving licence and secondly, for the owner or any person in-charge of the motor vehicle not to allow any one to drive the vehicle without an effective driving licence. He submitted that the State Commission erred in holding that in case of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim can be settled on non-standard basis and that the repudiation of the claim will amount to deficiency in service.
He pointed out that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, relating to endorsement for driving licence for carrying hazardous goods requires special training and absence of endorsement clearly indicates absence of valid and effective driving licence required for that particular class of vehicles and hence any endorsement cannot be dealt with as a mere violation. He further submitted that Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules lays down certain requirements which need to be met before a person can get an endorsement for driving a hazardous goods vehicle on his driving licence. In view of these facts, the State Commission committed a mistake in upholding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-company in rejecting the claim of the respondent and slight modification in the order of the District Forum to reduce the claim from 75% of the claimed amount to 75% of the assessed amount as per surveyors report, would not make any difference since even the modified order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the driver of the vehicle admittedly possessed a valid driving licence and absence of endorsement regarding driving of the hazardous goods vehicle was only a minor contravention or breach, if at all that is treated as breach of the condition and hence the State Commission was right in upholding the deficiency of service on the part of the insurance company but modified the amount of claim by basing it on non-standard basis on the amount assessed by the Surveyor.
7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The broad facts of the case are not in dispute. In view of this, a view has to be taken in the light of the law settled by the Apex Court in this regard. Keeping in view the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of.., and also of this Commission, it is well settled that wherever an endorsement is required on the driving licence for driving a particular class of vehicles, absence of such endorsement will constitute non-possession of an effective licence to drive that particular vehicles.
Since in this case, admittedly, the driving licence did not have endorsement to drive the hazardous vehicles, it cannot be said that he possesses an effective and valid licence to drive the vehicle in question and hence there is no dispute that there was breach of an important condition. Fora below erred in holding otherwise and deciding the claim in favour of the complainant on non-standard basis. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and hence is set aside.
8. In view of this, the complaint also stands dismissed and the revision petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.
..Sd/-
( ANUPAM DASGUPTA.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..Sd/-
(SURESH CHANDRA) MEMBER Naresh/reserved