National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Ankit Goyal vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr. on 20 January, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3825 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 05.09.2011in Appeal Case No.278 of 2010 of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh) Ankit Goyal Son of Anil Goyal, Resident of House No.626, 1st Floor, Sector 7, Panchkula .Petitioner Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Jeevan Parkash Building, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh 2. M/s. Goel Motors, Chandigarh-Kharar Road Mohali authorized dealers of Mahindra and Mahindra through its Manager .........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 20.01.2012 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by Shri Ankit Goyal against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT of Chandigarh, which had dismissed his appeal. In the first instance, his complaint had been filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum-1, Chandigarh. The complaint of the petitioner had been considered and dismissed by the District Forum.
2. The facts, in very brief, are that a Mahindra Pick Up Vehicle owned by the Complainant, had been insured with respondent/OP. During the currency of this insurance policy, the vehicle met with an accident on 28.2.2009 and suffered considerable damage. The Complainant lodged a claim for compensation with OP, New India Assurance Company Ltd., which was repudiated by the latter. The OP/Assurance Company informed the Complainant of this repudiation in their letter of 27.8.2009, in the following terms:-
We arranged the verification of the driving license submitted by you for the said driver from the issuing authority wherein it has been confirmed that the said license is for LMV Non Transport vehicle whereas the vehicle driven by the driver was transport vehicle.
That the driver was not holding the effective driving license at the time of accident for the vehicle driven.
As per the policy terms and conditions a person holding effective driving license at the time of accident can only drive the vehicle, thus the said claim has been repudiated and filed as No Claim.
3. The Consumer Complaint, as already noted, was dismissed by the District Forum, which observed that the copy of the driving license showed that Karan (who was reportedly driving the vehicle at the time of the accident), was entitled to drive LMV, Non Transport Vehicle. The Complainant did not produce the registration certificate of the vehicle, which would have been required to ascertain whether the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle or a non-transport vehicle. The District Forum took note of the fact that the Complainant had failed to produce the registration certificate not only for verification by the Insurance Company, but even before the Forum. It therefore, drew adverse inference against the Complainant, in relation to the answer to the question whether it was a transport or non-transport vehicle.
4. Considering the appeal of the Complainant against the above dismissal of his complaint, the State Commission took adverse note of the fact that the appellant/complainant had failed to produce certain documents, including the registration certificate, which were repeatedly sought by the OP/New India Assurance Company to decide the claim.
5. We have perused the record and heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. During the course of arguments learned counsel sought to advance a strange logic that the vehicle in question should be treated as a transport vehicle only when carrying goods and non-transport vehicle otherwise. We find that the same argument has been raised in para 5 of the complaint petition as reproduce below:-
That it is important to mention here that when the goods are being carried then the vehicle is treated as LMV Transport Vehicle whereas when no goods are being carried then the same vehicle is treated as LMV non transport vehicle. There is no investigation of the fact that the present vehicle can be treated as LMV Transport Vehicle. The policy issued by the Ops clearly shows the vehicle to be a LMV Vehicle and it does not show the same to be LMV Transport/Non Transport Vehicle.
6. A copy of the relevant insurance policy has been produced on behalf of the revision petitioner. It shows that the policy itself was captioned CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE of Goods Carrying (Other than 3-wh)- Public Carriers. We therefore, do not find any merit in the above argument of the counsel for the revision Petitioner. In our view, it was very rightly rejected by the fora below.
7. The State Commission has also gone into details of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has relied on the provision in Section 10, which reads as follows
10. Form and contents of licences to drive.- (1) Every learners licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(2) A learners licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-
(a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle ; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 8. From the above provision, the State
Commission has rightly inferred that there is a distinction between light motor vehicle and transport vehicle. A transport vehicle may be a LMV but to drive it, a distinct license is required to be obtained. The State Commission has also referred to Section 14 of the Act to highlight another distinction viz. currency of the license to drive a transport vehicle. It is for a period of three years, while in the case of other licenses, the currency can range from 5 to 20 years. In the instant case the driving license was for driving LMVNon Transport vehicle. The currency of the driving license was from 4.5.2001 to 3.5.2021, i.e. for a period 20 years. We therefore, agree with the decision of the State Commission to reject the contention of the appellant (present revision petitioner) that since the gross un-laden weight of the vehicle did not exceed 7,500 kg, the holder of this license would be entitled to drive the vehicle under Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
9. In the result, we find that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality, which could justify intervention of this Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
.
(V.B.GUPTA,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER s./-