State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.I.C.Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, ... vs Sudarshan Kumar Son Of Ram Krishan, ... on 18 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.101 of 2006 Date of Institution: 12.01.2006 Date of Decision: 18.04.2012 U.I.C.CO. Ltd. through its Manager, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Appellant (OP) Versus Sudarshan Kumar son of Ram Krishan, Resident of V.P.O. Petwar Tehsil Narnaund and District Hisar now at Kothi No.16, H.T.M. Colony, Hisar. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for appellant. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hisar in complaint No.292 of 2003 filed by complainant (respondent herein) against the appellant-opposite party which relates to the insurable benefits in respect of insured Jeep (Maxi-cab) bearing registration No.HR-56-0045, which damaged in an accident during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy.
The brief facts of the present case as emerged from the record are that the vehicle i.e. Jeep (Maxi-cab) bearing registration No.HR-56-0045 of the respondent-complainant was insured with the appellant-opposite party w.e.f. 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2003. On 16.10.2002 the vehicle damaged in an accident. The surveyor of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle and assessed the damage to the extent of Rs.26,000/-. But according to the complainant he spent Rs.70,000/- on the repairs of his vehicle. However, the claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that Sunil Kumar son of Suraj Bhan-who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving licence because Sunil Kumar was having a licence to drive Motor Cycle/Scooter/Car/Jeep whereas the vehicle in question was of carrying capacity of passengers 9+1 and thus it was a maxi-cab for which L.T.V. driving licence was required. Challenging the repudiation of his claim, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the insurable benefits.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement wherein it justified repudiation of complainants claim on the above stated ground and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum accepted complaint with the observation that there is no evidence on the file to show that the vehicle might be a maxi-cab and thus termed the vehicle in question as Light Motor Vehicle and issued directions given below:-
.The respondent company is directed to make the payment of Rs.26000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from 16.1.2003 till its payment. The respondent company is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within a period of three months.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Respondent already exparte vide order dated 03.10.2011.
The question for consideration before us is whether the jeep of the complainant having sitting capacity of 9+1 falls within the definition of L.M.V. or L.T.V..
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Sunil Kumar son of Suraj Bhan driver of the vehicle was having the driving licence to drive Motor Cycle /Scooter/Car/ Jeep whereas the vehicle in question was of carrying capacity of passengers 9+1 which was a maxi-cab for which L.T.V. driving licence was required.
To come to a right conclusion, Section 2(26) and 2(29) of the Motor Vehicle Act needs to be perused wherein the category of the vehicles has been defined and the same is reproduced as under:-
Section 2(26) motor car means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage;
2(29) omnibus means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver;
In view of above sections of the Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle carrying sitting capacity of 9+1 passengers falls under the category of Omnibus. Admittedly, the ill-fated jeep of the complainant was registered with the Registration Authority as a vehicle carrying capacity of 9+1 passengers. Thus, Sunil Kumar driver was required to hold a LTV driving licence to drive the said vehicle but he was having LMV licence. As per Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicle Act, was not authorized to drive the vehicle in question. Section 2(10) is reproduced as under:-
2 (10) driving licence means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description;
The bare reading of the above Sections of the Motor Vehicle has made it clear that the complainant has violated the provision of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act which deals with the necessity for driving licence which is reproduced below:-
(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle;
and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.
(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Honble National Commission in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Versus ARVIND KUMAR RAJAK, III(2008) CPJ 191 (NC), relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court while deciding the similar situated controversy. Para 5 of the judgment of the Honble National Commission is reproduced as under:-
5. In the decision in National Insurance Company v. Kusum Rai & Ors., III (2006) SLT 162=II (2006) ACC 19 (SC)=II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC)=(2006) 4 SCC 250, it was held by the Supreme Court that if transport vehicle which is being driven by a driver holding licence for driving Light Motor Vehicle only without there being any endorsement for driving transport vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be ordered to pay compensation. In Civil Appeal No.5539 of 2007, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Prabhu Lal, IX(2007) SLT 841=1(2008) ACC 54 (SC)=1(2008) CPJ 1 (SC), decided on 30.11.2007 by the Apex Court, it was held that Clauses (14),(21),(28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is Light Motor Vehicle, but falls under the category of Transport Vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, the person holding driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle."
The facts of the instant case are fully attracted to ARVIND KUMAR RAJAK case (Supra). Thus, the complainant is not entitled to insurable benefits because he had handed over his vehicle to a person who was not authorised to drive the said vehicle. Maxi-cab (jeep) of the complainant with carrying passengers capacity 9+1 is a Light Transport Vehicle. District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the above stated facts. Hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.
Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.18,333/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 18.04.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member