National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ramesh Kumar on 9 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ400(NC)
ORDER
M.B. Shah, J. (President)
1. This Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and order dated 18.8.1998 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, in Appeal No. 14 of 1997. By the impugned judgment the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum dated 9th December, 1996, whereby the Insurance Company was directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. from 14.12.1995 till the date of payment and costs of Rs. 1,000.
2. It is the contention of the complainant (respondent) that he was the owner of the vehicle, Swaraj Mazda, which was insured with the petitioner, Insurance Company, for a sum of Rs. 2 lakh. Due to accident on 7.1.1994 the vehicle suffered heavy damage. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 16.2.1995. Hence, the complaint before the District Forum. The grounds taken for repudiation were that (i) driver of the vehicle, Shri Rohit Kumar Walia, was not having a valid driving licence, as he was having only a learner's licence at the time of accident; and (ii) there were four unauthorised passengers in the vehicle during the accident. However, this contention was not pressed before the State Commission.
3. Therefore, the only question which requires consideration in this Revision Petition is whether a driver having learner's licence can be regarded as 'authorised driver' having valid driving licence.
4. Who can drive the vehicle? In this regard, the insurance policy provides thus:
Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive: Any of the following-
(a) The insured.
(b) Any other person who is driving on the insured's order or with his permission:
Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of motor vehicle insured thereunder.
5. The driver's licence, which is Annexure P-3, admittedly, is a learner's licence which, inter alia, provides that the person has licence to drive throughout India as a learner subject to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the motor vehicle of the following description, namely, LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) only. The licence was valid from 24.5.1993 to 23.11.1993 and was renewed upto 5.7.1994 w.e.f. 6.1.1994.
6. It is an effective licence as provided in Section 13 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 13 provides that a learner's licence of a driver issued under the Act would be effective throughout India.
7. Further, the contentions raised in this petition are not required to be discussed in detail in view of the larger Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Szvaran Singh and Ors. I (2004) SLT 345 : 1 (2004) ACC 1 (SC)=2004 Vol. 1, ACJ p. 1. Firstly, the Apex Court, after considering various provisions of the Act held that when a person has been granted a licence for one type of vehicle, but at the relevant time he was driving another type of vehicle, would not, by itself, be sufficient for the insurer to avoid its liability. The Court observed thus (para 82):
In each case on evidence led before the Claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.
8. Dealing with the contention of learner's licence, the Court held that it cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. He would be within the purview of 'duly licensed'. The relevant discussion is as under (Paras 86 and 87):
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of learner's licence [see Section 4(3), Section 7(2), Section 10(2) and Section 14]. A learner's licence is, thus, also a licence within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that a vehicle when being driven by a learner subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would not be a person who is not duly licensed resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the same would run counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the Act.
The provisions contained in the said Act provide also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a learner's licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act provide for the restriction in the matter of grant of driving licence. Section 7 deals with such restrictions on granting of learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide for the manner and conditions for grant of driving licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving licence. Learner's licences are granted under the rules framed by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their rule making power. Conditions are attached to the learner's licences granted in terms of the statute. A person holding learner's licence would, thus, also come within the purview of 'duly licensed' as such a licence is also granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is now a well settled principle of law that rules validly framed become part of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to be read as part of main enactment. It is also well settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to all provisions under the rule. No provision should be considered as surplusage.
9. The Court specifically held that if a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the decree, [pr. 102 (viii).
10. At this stage, we would mention that learned Counsel Mr. Mehra for the Insurance Company referred to the decision rendered in Mandar Madhav Tambe's case, I . However, it is to be stated that that decision was considered in the aforesaid judgment and the Court held that the said decision would have no binding precedent as the question was not argued nor binding precedents were considered. The Court held that it is not a binding precedent.
11. The Court also observed that the question as to whether such clause would be followed or not did not arise for consideration and that decision was rendered therein peculiar fact situation obtaining therein. Relevant discussion is as under:
88. Mandar Madhav Tambe's case, , whereupon learned Counsel placed reliance, has no application to the fact of the matter. There existed an exclusion clause in the insurance policy wherein it was made clear that the Insurance Company, in the event of an accident, would be liable only if the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence or a permanent driving licence 'other than a learner's licence'. The question as to whether such a clause would be valid or not did not arise for consideration before the Bench in the said case. The said decision was rendered in the peculiar c fact situation obtaining therein. Therein it was stated that 'a driving licence' as defined in the Act is different from a learner's licence issued under Rule 16 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1939 having regard to d the factual matrix involved therein.
"89. The question which arises for consideration in these petitions did not arise there. Neither the same were argued at the Bar nor the binding precedents were considered. Mandar Madhav Tambe's case, , therefore, has no application to the facts of these cases nor create any binding precedent. The view we have taken is in tune with the judgments rendered by different High Courts consistently [see Neiv India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Latha Jayaraj ]
12. Admittedly, in the present case, the contract or the policy nowhere provides that driver should be holding a permanent driving licence other than learner's licence.
13. The decision rendered in Swaran Singh case is binding, and, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss further.
14. Further, on the facts we would mention that admittedly the vehicle, namely, Swaraj Mazda, owned by the complainant, met with an accident on 7.1.1994. As per the survey report dated 30.7.1994, the registered laden weight was 5,990 kgs. and unladen weight is stated to be 2,420 kgs. Section 2(21) defines light motor vehicle to mean 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 6,000 kgs. at the relevant time and now 7,500 kgs. w.e.f. 14.11.1994. It is, therefore, rightly pointed out that as per the definition of the words 'light motor vehicle' contained in Section 2(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insured vehicle Swaraj Mazda was a light motor vehicle.
15. Learned Counsel Mr. Mehra referred to Section 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads thus:
7. Restrictions on the granting of learner's licences for certain vehicles:
(1) No person shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year.
(2) No person under the age of eighteen years shall be granted a learner's licence to drive a motor cycle without gear except with the consent in writing of the person having the care of the person desiring the learner's licence.
16. As against this, it is rightly submitted that the said provisions are not applicable because accident took place on 7.1.1994 and the amended Section 7 came into force w.c.f. 14.11.1994. At the relevant time Section 7 was as under:
7. Restriction on the granting of learner's licences for certain vehicles.- (1) No person shall be granted a learner's licence-
(a) to drive heavy goods vehicle unless he has held a driving licence for at least two years to drive a light motor vehicle or at least one year to drive a medium goods vehicle;
(b) to drive a heavy passenger motor vehicle unless he has held a driving licence for at least two years to drive a light motor vehicle or at least one year to drive a medium passenger motor vehicle;
(c) to drive a medium goods vehicle or a medium passenger motor vehicle unless he has held a driving licence for at least one year to drive a light motor vehicle.
17. This question also is not required to be discussed further as similar contention was negatived by the Apex Court in Ashok Gaitgadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. II (1999) ACC 463 (SC) : 2000 CC] 590.
14. Now the vehicle in the present case weighed 5,920 kilograms and the driver had the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is not that, therefore, the insurance policy covered a transport vehicle which meant a goods carriage. The whole case of the insurer has been built on a wrong premise. It is itself the case of the insurer that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a non-transport vehicle, there was no statutory requirement to have specific authorisation on the licence of the driver under Form 6 under the Rules. It has, therefore, to be held that Jadhav was holding effective valid licence on the date of accident to drive light motor vehicle bearing registration No. KA 28-567.
18. In view of the settled law, as stated above, it is unnecessary to reiterate and refer to various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties.
19. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5,000.