State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahantesh vs The Manager, on 16 June, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/239/2015 ( Date of Filing : 06 Mar 2015 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/05/2012 in Case No. CC/440/2011 of District Belgaum) 1. Mahantesh S/o Veerbhadrappa Pattanshety, A/a 46 years, R/a Rudrapur, Saundatti Taluk, Belgaum District-591111 . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch office at 1st floor, Merchants Bank Building, Bus stand Road, Bailhongal, Belgaum District-591111 . ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 16 Jun 2023 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2023 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 239/2015 Sri Mahantesh, S/o Veerbhadrappa Pattanshety, Aged about 46 years, Occ : Business, R/at Rudrapur, Saundatti Taluk, Belgaum District. (By Sri G.S. Balagangadhar) ......Appellant/s V/s The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at 1st Floor, Merchants Bank Building, Bus Stand Road, Bailhongal, Belgaum District. (By Sri M.R. Manoj Kumar) .....Respondent/s ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt. 22.05.2012 passed in CC.No.40/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belgaum.
2. The appellant/complainant submits that he is the owner of the vehicle Mahindra Pickup Bolero bearing Registration No.KA-24/4461 and insured with the Opposite Party. Such being the case, the vehicle met with an accident on 20.02.2009 and the vehicle suffered damages for which he repaired the vehicle and spent Rs.5,05,052.58. After repair, he claimed for reimbursement of the said repair charges by virtue of the policy under own damage. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim for the reason that the driver as on the date of accident had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle and he had only a driving license to drive LMV non-transport whereas the vehicle belongs to the complainant is a transport vehicle and for this reason, the claim was repudiated. Aggrieved by the said, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and filed a complaint before the District Commission and sought for payment of own damage claim to the above said amount. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint for the reason that the driver had no valid driving license and also noticed that third party claim before MACT also dismissed. The Order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with Law.
3. The driver had valid driving license to drive the LMV. The vehicle which was met with an accident is also LMV. The District Commission not appreciated the said fact and dismissed the complaint, hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and directed the respondent to pay own damage claim in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Heard from respondent.
5. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is not in dispute that the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-24-4461 was insured with the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the said vehicle suffered damages due to accident. By virtue of the policy, the appellant/complainant being a owner of the vehicle claimed for reimbursement of the amount spent towards the repair to the tune of Rs.5,05,052.58, the claim was repudiated by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the District Commission by filing a complaint. The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint holding that the driver had no valid driving license to drive the goods vehicle and also noticed that third party claim before the MACT was also fasten the liability on the respondent and concluded that the complainant is not eligible for claim.
6. According to us, the Order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with Law. We noticed here that the class of the vehicle involved in the accident is LMV. At the same time, the driver had a valid driving license to drive the LMV also. There is only a difference with respect to the utilization of the vehicle which is for transportation of the goods or for private use. Merely there is a distinction between use of the vehicle, the claim cannot be repudiated. When the vehicle is LMV, either a transport or non-transport, the complainant had valid driving license to drive LMV in this respect, the claim cannot be repudiated in toto.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellant had cited a decision reported in 2017 SAR (civil) 1008 SC the matter between Mukund Dewangan v/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited is as hereunder;
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Secs. 2(15), 2(21), 2(48), 2(49), 10(2)(d), 10(2)(e), 10(2)(f), 10(2)(b), 10(2)(g) - Licence to drive motor vehicles - Classification - Driver holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicles - Can drive transport vehicles of such class without any endorsement in his driving licence to the effect:
(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in Sec. 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Sec. 2(21) read with Sec. 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Sec.10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Sec.10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.03.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Sec. 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in Sec. 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in Sec. 10(2)(b) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in Sec. 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Sec.10(2)(d) and Sec.2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
Further submits that the vehicle involved in the accident in this case is also LMV and the driver had a valid driving license to drive the vehicle, hence, prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the Order passed by the District Commission. Relying on the said decision and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, here we noticed that the vehicle involved in the accident is LMV and the driver had a valid driving license to drive the LMV. We are of the opinion that for the purpose of settlement of the claim, the respondent company should always see whether the driver had driving license to drive the class of vehicle irrespective whether it is a transport or non-transport. It is only a badge which is issued by the RTO Authority for the purpose of classification only and that cannot be taken only as a ground for repudiation. Hence, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant. The District Commission also not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and dismissed the complaint, hence, it requires to be set aside. Hence, the following;
ORDER The Appeal is allowed.
The Order dt. 22.05.2012 passed in CC.No.40/2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belgaum is hereby set aside and the complaint is allowed.
The Opposite Party is directed to pay the claim as per the Survey Report if any and if not directed to pay eligible claim as per the policy to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In default, the abovesaid amounts shall carry interest at 6% from the date of default, till realization.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER