National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs M.D. Srinivasa on 27 April, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1402 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 21.03.2006 in Appeal No. 1640/2004 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Opp. K.E.B. Mandya Karnataka Through its Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited 10th Floor, Hansalaya Building 15, Barakhamba Road New Delhi-110 001 Petitioner Versus M.D. Srinivasa S/o M.D. Devaraju Door No. 1442, 4th Cross Ashok Nagar Mandya Karnataka Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER For Petitioner : Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate for Mr. Joy Basu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. D.P. Chaturvedi, Advocate Pronounced on 27th April, 2010 ORDER
Per S.K. Naik, Member This revision petition has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 21st of March, 2006 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (State Commission for short). They are aggrieved that, the State Commission has reversed the order dated 22nd of September, 2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya (District Forum for short), by which the District Forum while accepting the ground of repudiation of the petitioner-Insurance Company had dismissed the complaint of the respondent herein.
The dispute between the parties had arisen under the following circumstances:
The respondent-complainant is the owner of Eicher Cantor, 2001 model, medium goods vehicle, which was duly insured for the period 26th of April, 2001 to 25th of April, 2002. The vehicle met with an accident during the subsistence of the insurance policy on 23rd of February, 2002, resulting in extensive damage to the vehicle. The police authorities as well as the petitioner-Insurance Company were informed about the accident. The petitioner-Insurance Company deputed a surveyor, who assessed the damage at Rs.1,24,365.20 ps. Allegedly, the respondent-complainant spent a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- for the repair of the vehicle and filed a claim petition for its reimbursement. The petitioner-Insurance Company, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident was not authorized to drive a vehicle of the class to which the insured vehicle belonged.
Aggrieved thereupon, the respondent-complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner-Insurance Company. On consideration of the evidence produced by either side, the District Forum on a thorough analysis of the provisions of law on the subject arrived at the conclusion that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident did not hold a valid driving license to drive the said vehicle which was a medium goods vehicle, as the driving license held by the driver was only for light motor vehicle (non transport) and, therefore, dismissed the complaint.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the respondent-complainant challenged the order of the District Forum before the State Commission in an appeal.
The State Commission did not agree with the view taken by the District Forum and reversed the order and vide the order impugned directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent-complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization, subject to the surrender of the salvage by the respondent-complainant.
Unhappy with this order of the State Commission that the opposite party-petitioner-Insurance Company has instituted this revision petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the case very carefully.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company, referring to the Registration Certificate of the vehicle (page 41 of the paper-book), has contended that as per the certificate the unladen weight of the vehicle though was 3200 Kgs., the gross vehicle weight is 8770 Kgs. It is also clearly stated therein that the vehicle belonged to medium goods vehicle class. He has referred to the driving license, which is at page 56 of the paper-book, and has pointed out that the driver was in possession of a driving license which authorized him to drive LMV (NT) [light motor vehicle (Non-Transport)]. Learned counsel thereafter has elaborated on the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in particular, section 2(21), which reads as under :-
light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.
(emphasis added) and has contended that as would be evident from this provision, a light motor vehicle includes a transport vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which is less than 7500 Kgs.
However, in the instant case, the gross vehicle weight (registered laden weight) of the insured vehicle is 8770 Kgs. which puts the insured vehicle in the category of medium goods vehicle.
When the driver of the insured vehicle was holding a driving license that entitled him to drive only a light motor vehicle and that too of non-transport category, he was not entitled to drive a medium goods vehicle, which clearly fell in the category of transport vehicle, and, therefore, the State Commission has clearly erred by arriving at the finding that the driver was entitled to drive the medium goods vehicle.
Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant though does not dispute that the driver was in possession of a driving license authorizing him to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport), however, has made an attempt to persuade us that the vehicle in question belonged to the category of a light motor vehicle. In this respect, he has relied upon the same section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has contended that since the words in the definition state that light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 Kgs., and in the present case the unladen weight being 3200 Kgs., he contends that the driver with a license to drive a light motor vehicle was competent under the law to drive the vehicle, which, according to him, conform to the definition of a light motor vehicle. This interpretation of the learned counsel, however, amounts to a total misreading of the provision since the obvious meaning for a transport vehicle to fall in the category of a light motor vehicle would mean that its gross weight should not exceed 7500 Kgs. whereas in the case in hand the gross weight as stated in the Registration Certificate is 8770 Kgs.
It is also to be noted here that the vehicle at the time of accident was carrying load of vegetables; meaning thereby that the reference to unladen weight would have no relevance.
Besides, the Registration Certificate itself states that the vehicle belongs to a medium goods category; meaning thereby that it was a transport vehicle, for which an endorsement on the driving license was necessary for it to be valid.
Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that under Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a license for a transport vehicle can be issued only for a period of 3 years whereas the license of the driver in this case has been issued for a period of 20 years. This further proves that the license of the driver authorized him to drive only non-transport vehicle and that is also the endorsement in his driving license.
In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaya Rajender Kumar Nanda (RP No. 979 of 1997), this Commission has held that the driver must have a driving licence to drive a particular class of vehicle and it is only in respect of this class that the driving licence shall be deemed to be effective. That apart, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Prabhu Lal [(2008) 1 SCC 696] had upheld the contention of the Insurance Company that if a person is having a license to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do. Clauses 14, 21, 28 and 47 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes it clear that if a vehicle is light motor vehicle but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving license has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving license to ply a light motor vehicle cannot ply the transport vehicle.
Thus, having utmost regard to this ruling on the subject by the Honble Apex Court, we cannot but hold that the order passed by the State Commission is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside and the revision petition is allowed with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
(ASHOK BHAN, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh