State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Kamla Devi vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 9 January, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
(A/11/2661)
Appeal No.380/2011
Instituted on 11.07.11
Smt. Kamla Devi, W/o Late Shri Om Prakash Singh,
R/o: S.E.C.L. Colony, Pragati Vihar,
Qr. No.960, Bhatgaon, Thana: Bhatgaon,
Dist. SURGUJA (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Through: Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Nr. Ambedkar Chowk,
M.G.Road, Ambikapur,
Dist. SURGUJA (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES IN ALL THREE APPEALS: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri P.K. Paul, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated: 09 /01/2012 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against order dated 28.05.2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja-Ambikapur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No.163/2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein has been dismissed on the ground that the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the insurer, has not been proved.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the vehicle Bolero bearing No.CG-15A-6993, of the registered ownership of the appellant, // 2 // was insured by the respondent / insurance company under comprehensive insurance policy as a passenger carrying commercial transport vehicle. The said vehicle suffered damages in a road accident on 07.02.09. Claim was preferred by the appellant before the insurance company, which was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. This repudiation of claim was alleged as deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and so consumer complaint was filed for seeking compensation of Rs.65,000/- from the insurer.
3. Learned District Forum agreed with the defence taken by the insurance company and dismissed the complaint.
4. The only question for consideration, before us, is as to whether the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective licence and as to whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the appellant.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
// 3 //
6. The record of the case shows that the driver of the vehicle Janak Lal was having licence No.1860/KOR/05. It has been submitted that though the driving licence was for driving light motor vehicles and motorcycle with gear, but the questioned vehicle also comes in the category of light motor vehicles and therefore the licence was valid and effective. It has also been contended that even if the driving licence was not as per the rules, then also the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the appellant in toto, in view of pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 536. On the basis of this citation, it has been submitted that the insurance company be directed to pay the amount of compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the driver was having licence for driving light motor vehicles only, whereas the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle and there was no endorsement, in the licence, permitting him to drive a transport vehicle, so he was not authorized to drive the insured vehicle and it amounts fundamental breach of terms of the policy and so the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of any compensation.
// 4 //
8. We have taken into consideration these arguments of both parties in the light of documents which are available in the record. Copy of driving licence of the driver has been filed by the complainant as document Annexure A-2. This document shows that the licence was for driving motorcycle with gear and light motor vehicles. Thus, he was permitted to drive only light motor vehicles. Its verification report from the concerning RTO Office has been filed by the insurance company as document Annexure D-2(2). In this report it has been stated that the driving licence was for permitting the person to drive motorcycle with gear and light motor vehicles and the endorsement regarding permission for driving light transport vehicle was made w.e.f. 04.03.09, whereas the incident was that of 07.02.09. Thus, on the date of incident, the driver was having authority to drive only light motor vehicles other than transport vehicles.
9. In the case of Amalendu Sahoo (supra), the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle and allegation of the insurance company was that it was given on hire, though no payment of hiring charges was proved before District Forum. On these facts, it was ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim in toto and the insurance company was directed to pay consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, even though the compensation claimed was of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the case was having different facts. In paragraph // 5 // No.14 of the reported case, a decision of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak, (2006) 2 CPJ 144 (NC), was referred and it has been stated that in that case the question was whether the insurance company can repudiated claims in a case where a vehicle, carrying passengers and the driver did not have a proper driving licence, met with an accident. Hon'ble National Commission in that case granted the claim on nonstandard basis. It was merely a reference made by Hon'ble Apex Court of an earlier case decided by Hon'ble National Commission, but no finding has been recorded to the effect that even if driver was not having valid and effective driving licence, award on nonstandard basis can be passed against the insurance company.
10. Counsel for the insurance company has drawn our attention towards another pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), in which many other previous citations on the subject were considered and it was observed that as the vehicle was a 'goods carriage' as defined in Section 2(14), covered by the category of 'transport vehicle' under section 2(47) of the Act, therefore the decision of the District Forum to the effect that the driver was having driving licence to driver light motor vehicles and was not authorized to drive transport vehicles and so repudiation of claim by the insurance company was right, has been // 6 // held appropriate and the contrary decision of State Commission as well as Hon'ble National Commission were set aside. In the reported case by single judgment three appeals, in which same question of law was involved was decided and in all those cases, it was found that if the driver was having licence of driving light motor vehicles only, then he can not drive a transport vehicle and repudiation of claim by the insurance company was justified. The principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case applies in the facts of the present case also. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and ors., 2006 ACJ 1336, also, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.9 has held that the driver of the questioned vehicle was having a licence to drive light motor vehicles only whereas he was driving a vehicle which was being used as a taxi and thus he was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor, as he did not possess any licence to drive commercial vehicle, evidently there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance and therefore the insurer could raise such defence.
11. Hon'ble National Commission, also in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Kumar Rajak, III (2008) CPJ 191 (NC); this Commission also, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prahlad Kumar Sahu, III (2009) CPJ 320; Kanwal Singh Vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Appeal No.268/2008, decided // 7 // on 11.05.09; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Pandey & ors., Appeal No.486/2008, decided on 29.09.09, has held that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicles only, then he is not entitled to drive a commercial vehicle or passenger carrying vehicle unless there is an endorsement to that effect in the driving licence, made by the Licencing Authority. In a recent pronouncement also, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prithipati Sattiyya & ors., IV (2011) CPJ 133 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has expressed the same view.
12. The temporary permit of the vehicle in question is also for jeep taxi i.e. commercial vehicle and the purpose has been shown as, 'for carrying passengers on hire'. The policy of the questioned vehicle shows that the vehicle has been insured as passengers carrying commercial vehicle and insurance cover was provided for commercial vehicle and the law is clear on the subject that when one drives a commercial vehicle, then he must have appropriate licence to drive such vehicle or an endorsement in his driving licence, permitting him to drive such vehicles, which was not with the driver of the questioned vehicle, at the relevant time.
13. Thus, examining the matter from all angles, we find that the District Forum has not committed any mistake in dismissing the // 8 // complaint. The appeal has got no substance, therefore the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/01/2012 /01/2012