State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Deveshwari Devi on 30 May, 2016
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 09 / 2011
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Through Regional Manager
Rajpur Road, Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Smt. Deveshwari Devi W/o Late Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Goswami
R/o Gram Garhtara, Vratt Guptkashi, Tehsil Ukhimath
District Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand
......Respondent / Complainant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 30/05/2016
ORDER
(Per: Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member):
This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by appellant-opposite party against the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the District Forum, Rudraprayag in consumer complaint No. 28 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party for insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum. The opposite party is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in the District Forum, within one month.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that Late Rameshwar Prasad Goswami, husband of the complainant, was the registered owner of the vehicle No. UA07-C-9210 Tata Sumo, LMV Maxi Cab. This vehicle was insured by the opposite 2 party-National Insurance Co. Ltd. for a period from 23.04.2005 to 22.04.2006 and its policy No. is 462201/31/05/6300000261 for a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. The aforesaid vehicle was met an accident on 06.11.2005 at 03.00 p.m. at PWD Colony, Jakhtoli, Rudraprayag. This vehicle got total damage in the accident and the husband of the complainant died in this accident. The salvage of the damaged vehicle had been deposited with the insurance company and all the formalities had been completed by the complainant to settle the claim, but insurance company has not settled the claim, for which the complainant had filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum. The opposite party assured the complainant if she take back her case, then they will pay the insured amount to the complainant, for which the complainant did not press her case before the District Forum and the same was dismissed by the District Forum. But the insurance company repudiated her claim. Aggrieved by the act of the insurance company, the complainant has again filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Rudraprayag.
3. The opposite party-National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the written statement before the District Forum and admitted the para Nos. 2 and 6 of the consumer complaint. Para Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the consumer complaint are not admitted. In additional pleas, the answering opposite party has pleaded that the complainant is not a registered owner of the vehicle, rather her husband was the registered owner of the vehicle. That neither the damaged vehicle has been handed over to the answering opposite party nor salvage of the said damaged vehicle handed over to the answering opposite party. That the said vehicle was damaged partially and in present it is using for commercial purpose. On the date of accident, the vehicle was plying without valid driving licence. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. The repudiation of the claim of the complainant is just and correct and has been done according to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
34. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 15.11.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party-appellant has filed the present appeal.
5. Smt. Anjali Gusain, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, learned counsel for respondent appeared. We have gone through the entire record of the District Forum and have also perused the material placed on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party has submitted before this Commission that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. The District Forum has wrongly allowed the claim of the complainant inspite of the clear evidence on record that the driver Sh. Ram Dayal was not authorized to drive the vehicle on hill routes. There was no hill endorsement on the driving licence of the driver at the time of accident. The insured was not alive on the date of the accident and the case was filed by his wife without informing the company about the death of the insured. The claim could not be settled on the basis of a succession certificate.
7. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the driver Sh. Ram Dayal was driving the vehicle for last 05 years on hill routes. His driving licence was issued from Mumbai, therefore, the driver had 5 years' of experience.
8. In case of Balbir Singh vs. Shobha Kashyap & Others this Commission, as well as Hon'ble National Commission, has held that the insurance company is not liable to pay the claim, if the driver having no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in hill roads. In the instant case, the appellant has proved that there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver at the time of accident and he was not authorized to drive public service vehicle or goods vehicle on hill roads. This 4 Commission in the case of First Appeal No. 68 of 2014; Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sh. Purushottam Dutt Pant, decided on 24.02.2016, has held that there is no hill endorsement made in the driving licence of driver. Section 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 clearly prohibits plying of a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hilly routes by a person, who has not been permitted by the registering authority and not endorsed driving licence. There was no hill endorsement so as to authorize him to drive the vehicle in hill roads.
9. Rule 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 are applicable in the State of Uttarakhand also, which reads as under:-
"193. Endorsement of certain licences for hill roads - No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a Registering Authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such Registering Authority or in the case of a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the Registering Authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangement on the point have been agreed upon".
10. The vehicle in question was a Tata Sumo, LMV Maxi Cab fall within the definition of Public Service Vehicle as envisaged in Section 2(35) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Driver Sh. Ram Dayal was issued a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) from 05.04.2004 to 04.04.2007. From the perusal of the said driving licence it is observed that there was no hill endorsement. Therefore, it is clear that the driver of the complainant-respondent, Sh. Ram Dayal, was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Section 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 clearly prohibits plying of a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hilly routes by a person, who has not permitted by the registering authority and not endorsed driving licence. There was no hill endorsement so as to authorize him to drive the vehicle in hill roads. There 5 is no dispute that the accident took place in the hills of the State of Uttarakhand. Thus, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that on the date of accident, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle of respondent which is a public service vehicle and was having permit at the time of accident on a hill route. As there was no hill endorsement on his driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the complainant's claim.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has erred in allowing the consumer complaint per impugned order. The order impugned being not sustainable in the eyes of law, is liable to be set aside and appeal is fit to be allowed.
12 In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the District Forum, Rudraprayag is set aside and the consumer complaint No. 28 of 2006 is dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, as statutory amount be released in appellant's favour.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI)