National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Karnail Singh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 2 March, 2010
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 471 OF 2010 (Against the order dated 06.10.09 in Appeal No. 916 & 936/06 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna) KARNAIL SINGH ........ Petitioner (s) Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. ........ Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, Advocate Dated, the 2nd day of March, 2010 ORDER
JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Through this revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the original complainant seeks to challenge the order dated 6.10.09 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (in short, the State Commission) in FA Nos.916 & 936/06.
By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the First Appeal No. 936/06 filed by the insurance company and dismissed the First Appeal No. 916/06 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation. Consequently the complaint was dismissed.
2. The complaint before the District Forum related to non-settlement of an insurance claim to the extent of Rs.2,62,723/- on account of damage to an insured mini truck belonging to the complainant which met with an accident on 4.06.03 and suffered extensive damage. The claim was resisted by the insurance company primarily on the ground that there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy inasmuch as the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, i.e., 4.06.03, his licnece having already expired on 05.03.03 and it was renewed w.e.f. 06.6.03 only. The District Forum repelled the said plea of the insurance company misguided by a decision of the State Commission in complaint case no. 76/98 where the State Commission had itself observed that It is now settled law that repudiation of claim by insurance company on the ground that the driver was not holding valid driving licence is not a valid ground to repudiate the claim and partly allowed the complaint with a direction to the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,62,723/- as insurance claim to the complainant with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within 60 days from the date of receipt of order failing which it will attract interest @ 12% p.a. Aggrieved by the said finding and order of the State Commission both sides filed appeals. The insurance company filed First Appeal No. 936/06 praying for setting aside the impugned order while the First Appeal No. 916/06 was filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation. The State Commission disposed of both the appeals in the above manner.
3. We have heard Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner and have given our thoughtful consideration to his respective submissions. The present revision petition has been filed after 18 days delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay in filing the revision petition subject to just exceptions.
4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the legal position that driving of an insured motor vehicle by a person who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and on such a violation being established, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability to indemnify the loss caused to the insured vehicle. On facts also, it is not disputed that in the present case as on the date of accident, i.e., 4.06.03, the driver of the insured mini truck was not holding any valid and effective driving licence, his licence having expired on 05.03.03 and was renewed w.e.f. 06.06.03 only.
He, however, seeks to distinguish the present case on certain incidental facts/circumstances viz; that at least a day before the date of accident, i.e., on 03.06.03 (though as per the State Commission, the date of making such application for renewal of the driving licence is 05.06.03) the driver had applied to the concerned Motor Licencing Authority for renewal of his licence and though the licence was renewed from prospective date, i.e., 06.06.03 it should be deemed to have been renewed retrospectively either from the date of its expiry or at least w.e.f. 03.06.03, i.e., a day before the accident. In any case, based on the stipulation relating to the driving licence contained in the Accident Insurance Procedural Manual, he contended that the driver of the vehicle in question was not dis-qualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. He wants to stretch this provision so as to mean that even after the expiry of the validity of the licence, the driver will be deemed to hold or continue to hold a valid and effective driving licence if he had not incurred any dis-qualification for holding or obtaining such a licence and had not even applied for renewal of the licence. We are unable to agree with such an extensive interpretation of the said clause. Licencing of driving of motor vehicle is regulated by the provisions contained in Chaper II of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1998. Section 3, in not uncertain terms, prohibits the driving of a motor vehicle in any public place by a person unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him to drive such a vehicle. Section 15 deals with the renewal of driving licence and reads as under:-
15. Renewal of driving licences (1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry.
Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal.
5. A bare reading of the above provisions would leave no doubt in anybodys mind that the retrospective renewal of the licence is possible only if the application for renewal of licence is made within 30 days of the expiry of the driving licence and in case it is not made within 30 days, the renewal of the licence shall be w.e.f. date of its renewal. In the case in hand, admittedly the driver did not apply for renewal of the licence within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of expiry of his licence. He rather waited for almost 3 months to apply for renewal and that is why the motor licencing Authorities have renewed the licence from 06.06.03 only. With this position, there is no escape from the conclusion that as on the date of accident of the insured vehicle, i.e., 4.06.03, the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. This is a manifest violation of the terms and conditions of the policy subject to which the insurance was granted. In our view, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim in the case in hand and the State Commission in passing the impugned order which is strictly in consonance with the legal position as settled by the Apex Court. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdiction error in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.
.......Sd/-.................
(R.C. JAIN,J) PRESIDING MEMBER .......Sd/-................
(ANUPAM DASGUPTA) MEMBER