National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sahib Singh vs M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance ... on 6 January, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1055 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 22/11/2012 in Appeal No. 1316/2008 of the State Commission Punjab) 1. SAHIB SINGH S/O SATNAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KADAIN WALI, P.S LAMBRA JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. M/S. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER JALANDHAR PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Manjit S. Uppal, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Anuj Chauhan,Adv.
Dated : 06 Jan 2016 ORDER In this revision petition filed by Petitioner/Complainant, there is challenge to impugned order dated 22.11.2012, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission').
2. Case of petitioner's is, that he owned a vehicle 'Bolero' which was got insured with Respondent/Opposite Party from 11.11.2006 to 10.11.2007. On 26.11.2006, the said vehicle met with an accident regarding which Police was informed and a case was registered. Respondent was also informed, who appointed a surveyor who submitted his report assessing the loss at Rs.3,09,250/-. Respondent, however did not pay the amount in spite of repeated requests. Hence, petitioner has filed consumer complaint praying, that respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,09,250/-.
3. The complaint was opposed by the respondent, stating that the driver of vehicle was not holding a valid driving license to drive Bolero. Therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short, 'District Forum') dismissed the complaint, vide order dated 16.09.2008.
5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which finding no merits dismissed the same.
6. Hence, this revision.
7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, that vehicle of petitioner comes under the definition of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988, which read as under;
"2. Definition:-1 In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
(21) '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 7,500 kilograms.
9. The perusal of the above definition makes it crystal clear, that Mahindra Bolero, was never used as a transport vehicle nor the same, comes in the definition of Omnibus. In support, learned counsel has relied upon following judgments;
(i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak,
2006(2) CPJ (N.C.) 144 and
(ii) Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
2010(3) JT 218.
10. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for respondent, that driver of vehicle was not having any valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, that is, 'Bolero'. Therefore, both Fora below rightly dismissed the complaint. Learned counsel also relied upon following decisions of this Commission;
(i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shiv Shankar Soni, Revision Petition Nos. 2718 & 2093 of 2007 decided by this Commission on 07.05.2012; (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ms. Luxmi Food, Revision Petition No. 2024 of 2012 decided by this Commission on 12.04.2013 and (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. I.V. Muniraju (R.P.No.379 of 2012) decided by this Commission on 08.09.2015. 11. District Forum in its order held;
"The main point of the controversy in the present case that whether the vehicle even if mentioned as Light Transport vehicle is to be considered a Light Motor Vehicle if weight of the vehicle is is less than 7,500 Kgs. and whether the licence holder to drive such vehicle with a weight of less than 7,500 Kgs even if the vehicle is registered as LTV the controversy has been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, reported in 1(2008) CPJ, 1 (SC) Consumer Protection Judgments, in that case all the provisions that Rule Section2, Sub clause 21 regarding the weight of 7,500 Kgs. and Section 2.47 a definition of Transport Vehicle and Section 3 necessity of driving licence and Section 10, even specially and separately considered that according to that law and according to clauses 2.14,2.21, 2.28 and 2.47, it was held that even if the vehicle was a Light Weight Vehicle and if that same was transport vehicle, then specific authorities is required u/s 3 to drive transport vehicle and in this case there were no special authority in the present case in licence Ex. C2 and it was held that since driver had only having authority to drive light motor vehicle he was not authority to drive transport vehicle as in this case according to document Ex. C3 a vehicle was Light Transport Vehicle. Moreover in Section 10, the issuing of licence for Light Motor Vehicle and transport vehicle are shown in different sub clauses. Therefore, person authorize to light motor vehicle cannot drive the light transport vehicle, even if weight of the vehicle is less than 7,500 Kgs. because specific skill is required to use the vehicle as transport vehicle. As such, for absence of the specific endorsement required in Section 3 and Section 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act, driver holding licence to derive Light Motor vehicle is not entitled to drive Light Transport Vehicle, if weight of the vehicle is less than 7,500 Kgs. As such in view of latest authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal reported in 1(2008) CPJ, 1 (SCO, Consumer Protection Judgments, Claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. As such, repudiation is justified. Complaint is not maintainable same is dismissed."
12. The State Commission while dismissing petitioner's appeal, observed;
"....... It is true that the Registering Authority has registered this vehicle as LTV but there is no evidence to suggest if the vehicle was being used as a commercial vehicle. There is no evidence to suggest if the complainant/appellant at any stage obtained any permit to use the vehicle for commercial purpose. We therefore, cannot concur with the finding recorded by the learned District Forum that the driver needed a driving license to drive LTV as has been held by the learned District Forum in the impugned order.
8. The complaint however, is liable to be dismissed on another ground. Ex.C-3 is the certificate of registration showing that the seating capacity of the vehicle was 6+1. The vehicle which has a seating capacity of 6+1 falls under the definition of omnibus as mentioned in Section 2(29) of the Motor Vehicle Act. On the other hand the motor car is defined under Section 2(26) as follows:
(26) "Motor Car" means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage.
The omnibus has been specifically excluded from the definition of a motor car which means that the Bolero vehicle does not fall under the category of motor car but it is an omnibus. Further Section 2(21) defines a Light Motor Vehicle in view of which omnibus falls under the definition of LMV.
9. Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicle Act gives the definition of a driving license that it should be issued by a competent authority authorizing the person specified therein to drive, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. In this manner, it was necessary for the driver to have Light Motor Vehicle license to drive omnibus. A perusal of the record however, shows that Sahib Singh complainant did not have the driving license to drive LMV. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the driving license showing that he can drive Scooter/Car/Tractor and not LMV. Needless to mention that car and omnibus/LMV are two different classes of vehicles as explained above.
10. A combined reading of Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 shows that Sahib Singh- complainant was not competent to drive Bolero vehicle. Since he was not authorized to drive Bolero therefore, the damage caused to it cannot be compensated by the OP/respondent. We are therefore, of the opinion that the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP/respondent. There is no merit in this appeal andsame is accordingly dismissed."
13. As per copy of registration certificate placed on record by the petitioner, class of vehicle is 'L.T.V.' and description of vehicle is 'Bolero.' Thus, as per registration certificate, vehicle is 'Light Transport Vehicle'. However, as per copy of the driving licence of driver placed on record, the driver is authorized to drive only 'SCOOTER/CAR/TRACTOR'. Therefore, driver was not authorized to drive 'Light Transport Vehicle' which he was driving at the time, when the accident took place.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. Vs. New India assurance Company Ltd, 1996 SCC (1) 221 observed ;
"Thus, the requirements of that chapter are in relation to third party risks only and hence the fiction of Section 157 of the New Act must be limited thereto. The certificate of insurance to be issued in the prescribed form (See Form 51 prescribed under Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989) must, therefore, relate to third party risks. Since the provisions under the New Act and the Old Act in this behalf are substantially the same in relation to liability in regard to third parties, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was right in the view it took based on the decision in Kondaih's case because the transferee-insured could not be said to be a third party qua the vehicle in question. It is only in respect of third party risks that Section 157 of the New Act provides that the certificate of insurance together with the policy of insurance described therein "shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred". If the policy of insurance covers other risks as well, e.g., damage caused to the vehicle of the insured himself, that would be a matter falling outside Chapter XI of the New Act and in the realm of contract for which there must be an agreement between the insurer and the transferee, the former undertaking to cover the risk or damage to the vehicle. In the present case since there was no such agreement and since the insurer had not transferred the policy of insurance in relation thereto to the transferee, the insurer was not liable to make good the damage to the vehicle. The view taken by the National Commission is therefore correct."
15. Further, this Commission in Didar Singh and Anr. Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, III (2014) CPJ (NC), observed;
6. It is admitted fact that Didar Singh purchased vehicle and transferred it to Major Singh and intimation of transfer was not given by both the complainants to OP. It is admitted fact that vehicle was not transferred in the name of Major Singh after sale of vehicle by Didar Singh to Major Singh. Vehicle was stolen from the custody of Major Singh, Major Singh had no insurable interest on the date of theft and learned State Commission rightly observed as under:
"15. Admitted facts are that respondent no.1 Didar Singh sold the vehicle in question to respondent no.2 and handed over the possession, but the insurance policy remained in the name of respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 was also delivered the physical possession and he lodged the FIR Ex.C-4 regarding the theft of the vehicle in question. The appellant got the matter investigated and the investigator gave the report Ex.R-6 and after investigation, concluded that the vehicle was purchased by Major Singh from the insured, but the insured did not get transferred the insurance cover in the name of said Major Singh. The vehicle was stolen from village Benra and Major Singh only lodged the FIR and the theft was established. The investigator also recorded the statements and he produced the copy of the agreement Ex.R-7 vide which respondent no.1 has sold the truck in question to respondent no.2. Ex.R-8 is the receipt vide which he received the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs. Ex.R-9 to Ex.R-11 are the statements which further prove that the vehicle was sold and its possession was handed over by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2. The insurance remained in the name of respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 never intimated to the appellant about the transfer of the vehicle to respondent no.2. The handing over of the possession amounts to sale and it was obligatory on the part of respondent no.1 to intimate the appellant insurance company to get the insurance transferred in the name of respondent no.2. Respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions contained U/s 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act and GR-17 of India Motor Tariff as per which certificate of insurance has to be transferred in the name of the purchaser. GR-17 provides as follows:-
GR-17: Transfers:
The transferee shall apply within fourteen days from the date of transfer in writing under recorded delivery to the insurer who has insured the vehicle, with the details of the registration of the vehicle, the date of transfer of the vehicle, the previous owner of the vehicle and the number and date of the insurance policy, so that the insurer may make the necessary charges in his record and issue fresh Certificate of Insurance.
" 16. The Hon'ble National Commission in similar circumstances in case Om Parkash Sharma v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors,2009(1)CLT-29 (NC) observed in Para 3 as follows:-
" As by the time the car met with accident the petitioner had not even applied for transfer of policy in his favour, he had no locus standi to file the complaint. Repudiation of claim by the insurance company cannot be termed as deficiency in service."
17. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the provisions of 157 of Motor Vehicle Act which are also on the same lines as that of GR-17 have not been complied with in the present case and the impugned order under appeal is against the law and is not sustainable."
16. None of the judgments (Supra) relied by learned counsel for petitioner, are applicable to the facts of present case.
17. It is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. This Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission only where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed;
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".
19. In view of the concurrent finding of the facts given by both the Fora below, it is held that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The present revision petition thus having no legal merit, is hereby dismissed.
20. No order as to cost.
......................J V.B. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... PREM NARAIN MEMBER