State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sh. Kalyan Singh Rana on 30 May, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 107 / 2005 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ......Appellant Versus Sh. Kalyan Singh Rana .....Respondent Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. S.K. Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Justice Irshad Hussain, President Surendra Kumar, Member Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 30.05.2007 ORDER
(Per:
Justice Irshad Hussain, President):
This appeal is filed against the order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 17 / 2004.
2. Complainant's vehicle, a jeep, registered as taxi met with an accident during the currency of insurance period. At the time of the accident, it was driven by Sh. Ranjeet Singh Rana. Claim preferred for compensation was repudiated on the ground that at the time of the accident, driving licence was not endorsed for hill area. The ground of repudiation was based on the verification of the driving licence valid from 31.12.2002 to 30.12.2005 (Paper No. 66) authorizing the licence holder to drive Light Motor Vehicle (T) / Motorcycle. By way of evidence, complainant placed on record, another licence of the driver Sh. Ranjeet Singh Rana (Paper No. 81), which had been issued by the Licencing Authority of the State of Nagaland for the period from 25.04.2003 to 24.04.2006 and by which the licence holder was authorized to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle (Hill) beside other vehicles of different description. The insurer made no efforts to ascertain the validity of this licence and, therefore, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the driver of the accidental vehicle was having a valid driving licence and that the repudiation of the claim was not justified.
3. The District Forum awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the assured sum of the vehicle with interest @9% and Rs. 1,000/- as cost. The complainant was directed to deliver salvage to the insurer, failing which sum of Rs. 10,000/-, the value of the salvage was to be deducted from the amount of the compensation awarded.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions in the light of the facts of the case and legal aspects of the matter in issue. Learned counsel for the insurer argued that the complainant manipulated the case for his benefit in obtaining second driving licence for his son Sh. Ranjeet Singh Rana, who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident with a view to strengthen his claim for compensation in this unauthorized manner and that the obtaining of second driving licence in contravention of the provisions of Sections 6 & 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 need to be taken a ground for rejection of his claim for compensation. Holding of new driving licence during the validity of another driving licence is prohibited and the holder of such licence is liable to be punished under the provision of Section 182 of the said Act. However, as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant, it is difficult to accept that on account of such breach of the provision of the Act, it could be held that the holder of the new or second licence lacked skill to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. If the new / second licence had been obtained in this manner, this cannot be taken as a ground to repudiate the claim, more so, when the insurer made no efforts to ascertain validity of the new / second licence. In other words, the licence issued from the State of Nagaland can safely be held to be authorizing the driver to drive heavy goods vehicle in hill area also and further that as held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 73 of 2001, decided on 04.09.2006 in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inder Singh Chauhan (contained in Supreme Court and National Commission on Consumer Protection Law, Volume III published by D.L.T. Publications Pvt. Ltd., Delhi), a driver having a licence to drive 'heavy goods vehicle' is entitled to drive 'transport vehicle'. 'Heavy goods vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' are defined in sub-section (16) and (47) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:
"2(16)
- "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 Kilograms.
2(47) -
"transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle."
5. From above, it becomes clear that 'transport vehicle' include 'public service vehicle' and 'goods vehicle' etc. 'Public service vehicle' is defined in sub-section (35) of Section 2 of the Act as under:
"2(35) -
"public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage."
6. From above, it is also evident that the accidental vehicle, a jeep registered as taxi fall under the definition of 'public service vehicle' and, as such, the driver Sh. Ranjeet Singh Rana was authorized to drive the accidental vehicle, jeep, which was registered as taxi. Consequently, the defence plea that there was no endorsement of taxi in the licence and the driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident, cannot be taken to disentitle the complainant from making claim for compensation.
7. In view of above, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the District Forum that the defence plea that the driver of the accidental vehicle was not legally authorized to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident is not sustainable. Therefore, the insurer made deficiency in service in repudiating the claim.
8. In the accident, vehicle fell down and rolled into an about 250 feet deep gorge and was badly damaged. The driver and five passengers died in the accident. This is also made clear from the photographs (Paper Nos. 53 - 62) taken by the insurer's surveyor and in our view, the District Forum rightly held that the claim required to be settled on total loss basis. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the recommendation in the report dated 22.10.2003 (Paper Nos. 32 - 36) that the claim could be settled on repair basis was not based on proper appreciation of the damage to the vehicle and its engine and vital components of the vehicle.
9. So far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned, it is of significance that the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle at the time of taking the policy was Rs. 3,00,000/- and the validity of the insurance was from 16.01.2003 to 15.01.2004. Accident took place on 20.09.2003, i.e., after about eight months from the commencement of the period of the insurance and in a situation like this, a depreciation at the prescribed rate should have been made to determine the value of the vehicle. The District Forum fell in error in not making any depreciation to assess the value of the vehicle at the time of the accident and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest. Considering that accident took place within a period of one year, depreciation @5% for fixing the value of the vehicle could safely be made and by doing so, the value of the vehicle on the date of the accident was not more than Rs. 2,85,000/-. This apart, the value of the salvage need to be assessed keeping in view that the loss is being assessed on total loss basis. The surveyor in this case recommended for settlement of claim on cash loss basis and valued the salvage at Rs. 10,000/- only. Since the vehicle was insured for sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the value of the salvage in the case of assessment on total loss basis can reasonably be fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. The modification of the impugned order is required to be made accordingly.
10. Appeal is partly allowed. Order dated 14.03.2005 of the District Forum is modified to the extent that instead of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the complainant shall be entitled to Rs. 2,85,000/- as compensation with interest @9% w.e.f. 16.06.2004 till payment in addition to Rs. 1,000/- as cost awarded by the District Forum. The complainant shall return salvage to the insurer and on his failure to do so, sum of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deducted from the amount of compensation awarded. Cost of the appeal made easy.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (SURENDRA KUMAR) (JUSTICE IRSHAD HUSSAIN)