State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sat Pal And Sons vs Uiic on 29 October, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.769 of 2005
Date of institution: 24.05.2005
Date of decision : 29.10.2010
M/s Satpal & Sons, Malerkotla Road, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur through its Prop.
Satpal s/o Sh.Des Raj.
.....Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sai Market, Lower Mall, Patiala through its
District Manager.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 05.04.2005
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate For the respondents : Shri Paramjit Batta, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT The appellant had purchased mini truck bearing registration No.PB13-J-9674 Model 2001 to earn his livelihood and for self-employment from M/s Cholamandlum Loan Investment and Finance Company Limited. It was got insured with the respondents for an amount of Rs.3,75,000/- for the period from 16.12.2003 to 15.12.2004. Surjit Kumar who had valid and effective driving licence was its driver.
2. It was further pleaded that on 4.2.2004, bus bearing No.PB13-C- 9388 being driven by Jang Singh struck against the said truck of the appellant in which damage to the truck was extensive. The matter was reported to the police of Police Station Sadar, Patiala. Intimation was also given to the respondents. The respondents had appointed Mr.R.K.Bansal and Mr.Ramesh Goyal as Surveyors to assess the loss. It was got repaired by the appellant by spending an amount of First Appeal No.769 of 2005 2 Rs.2.5 lakhs. The respondents failed to settle the claim. Hence, the complaint for recovery of Rs.2.5 lakhs as the insurance claim. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
3. The respondents filed the written statement. It was admitted that truck bearing No.PB13-J-9674 model 2001 was insured in the name of M/s Satpal and Sons, Malerkotla Road, Dhuri for the period from 16.12.2003 to 15.12.2004. The parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was denied if Surjit Kumar was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Rather he had the driving licence for LMV only whereas the mini truck 407 was light transport vehicle. It was admitted that the respondents had appointed Shri R.K.Bansal and Shri Ramesh Goyal as Surveyors to assess the loss who had submitted the report. The claim of the appellant was repudiated. It was legal and valid. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. In support of his case, Satpal appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also proved documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of A.K.Kanojia, Branch Manager as Ex.R1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R12.
5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 5.4.2005.
6. Hence, this appeal.
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2005 be set aside and the respondents be directed to pay the insurance claim with compensation, interest and costs to the appellant. Written arguments were also filed.
8. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
First Appeal No.769 of 2005 3
9. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
10. It was pleaded by the appellant that he had purchased the mini truck bearing No.PB13-J-9674 Model 2001 from M/s Cholamandlam Loan Investment and Finance Company Limited in the name of M/s Satpal and sons. This fact was denied by the respondents. The appellant have placed on the file copy of the registration certification bearing No.PB13-J-9674 as Ex.C2 which reveals that the vehicle was in the name of the firm M/s Satpal and sons, Malerkotla Road, Dhuri. The appellant had pleaded that he was the proprietor of the firm M/s Satpal and sons, Malerkotla Road, Dhuri. This fact was denied by the respondents. However, the respondents have not placed on the file any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it is presumed that the appellant was the proprietor of the firm M/s Satpal and sons..
11. The appellant had pleaded that the said truck was got insured by the appellant from the respondents in the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- for the period from 16.12.2003 to 15.12.2004. This fact was admitted by the respondents. However, the appellant has also proved the insurance policy Ex.C4.
12. It was pleaded by the appellant that the vehicle had met with an accident on 4.2.2004. This fact was denied for want of knowledge by the respondents but the appellant has proved a copy of the FIR No.0094 dated 4.2.2004 registered in Police Station Sadar, Patiala as Ex.C5. It was registered at the instance of Ashwani Kumar son of Ratan Lal. It is specifically mentioned that Tata truck 407 bearing No.PB13-J-9674 was involved in an accident. It was being driven by Surjit Kumar. It was also alleged by the appellant that the respondents had appointed Shri R.K.Bansal and Ramesh Goyal as Surveyors. The respondents have admitted it and the report submitted by the Surveyors dated 20.2.2004 has been proved by the appellant as Ex.C1.
13. The appellant has pleaded that he had got the vehicle repaired by spending an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs. However, the surveyors in their report dated 20.2.2004 Ex.C7 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/-. The salvage First Appeal No.769 of 2005 4 value was assessed at Rs.1,10,000/- and the net value of the insurance claim was assessed at Rs.1,50,000/- minus Rs.500/- under the excess clause.
14. The appellant has pleaded that Surjit Kumar was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. He was holding a valid driving licence and his driving licence has been proved as Ex.C3. As per this driving lickence, Surjit Kumar was eligible for driving scooter/LMV only.
15. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the Tata 407 was a light transport vehicle whereas Surjit Kumar was holding a licence for scooter/LMV only. Therefore, he was not duly authorised to drive Tata Tempoo 407.
16. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that a driver holding valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle was competent to drive a light transport vehicle. Reliance was placed n the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 1999 SC 3181".
17. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as "as "New India Assurance Company v. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)". In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the law laid down in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha's case (supra). It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : -
"The District Forum, after considering the rival contentions of the parties and referring to the case law on the point, particularly a decision of this Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Orinetal Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 620, held that the complainant was not entitled to compensation. According to the District Forum, in Ashok Gangadhar, this Court held that if the driver was having effective driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), he could not have plied Heavy First Appeal No.769 of 2005 5 Motor Vehicle (HMV) or Transport Vehicle. The District Forum observed that from the evidence on record, it was proved that at the time of accident, Ram Narain was plying the vehicle in question and not Mohd. Julfikar as asserted. Ram Narain was having valid and effective driving licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle and as such he could not have plied the transport vehicle. The claim was, therefore, not tenable and accordingly the complaint was dismissed."
18. On the other hand, the submission of the insurance company was reproduced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : -
"Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an accident was a 'transport vehicle'. It was submitted that the insured vehicle was a 'goods carriage' and was thus a 'transport vehicle'. The vehicle was driven by Ram Narain, who was authorised to drive Light Motor Vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that vehicle met with an accident, Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation.:
19. After considering the law on the subject, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under : -
"In our considered view, the State Commission was wrong in reversing the finding recorded by the District Forum. So far as Ashok Gangadhar is concerned, we will deal with the said decision little later but from the First Appeal No.769 of 2005 6 documentary evidence on record and particularly, from the permit issued by the Transport Authority, it is amply clear that the vehicle was a 'goods carrier' [Section 2(14)]. If it is so, obviously, it was a 'transport vehicle' falling under clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. The District Forum was, therefore, right in considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company on the basis that Tata 709 which met with an accident was 'transport vehicle'."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also discussed the law laid down in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha's (case) as under : -
"In our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable.
In the present case, all the facts were before the District Forum. It considered the assertion of the complainant and defence of the Insurance Company in the light of the relevant documentary evidence and held that it was established that the vehicle which met with an accident was a 'transport vehicle'. Ram Narain was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle only and there was no endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act read with Rule 16 of the Rules and Form No.6. In First Appeal No.769 of 2005 7 view of necessary documents on record, the Insurance Company was right in submitting that Ashok Gangadhar does not apply to the case on hand and the Insurance Company was not liable."
In the present case, the vehicle which was got insured by the appellant from the respondents was mini truck and, therefore, was a light transport vehicle but the driving licence of Surjit Kumar driver had no endorsement under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
21. Since the appellant was not holding a valid driving licence, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2005.
22. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
23. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 21.10.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
24. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (AMARPREET SHARMA) MEMBER (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER October 29, 2010.
Paritosh