Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Uiic vs Chand Ram on 6 September, 2012

 PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
         DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

                         First Appeal No.1057 of 2007

                                      Date of institution: 02.08.2007
                                      Date of decision : 06.09.2012

1.    United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Deputy Manager,
      Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17 B, Chandigarh.

2.    Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Gaushala Road,
      Mansa 151505.

3.    Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional
      Office, 2090-B, The Mall, Bathinda - 151001.

4.    General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd H.O.24,
      Whites Road, Chennai - 600014.

                                                            .....Appellants
                           Versus

Chand Ram s/o Shree Ram r/o Gobindpura Nagri, Tehsil Sunam, District
Sangrur.
                                                     .....Respondent

                           First Appeal against the order dated 28.06.2007
                           passed by the District Consumer Disputes
                           Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
               Sardar Jagroop Singh Mahal,
                      Presiding Judicial Member

Mr.Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-

               For the appellants     :     Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate

               For the respondent     :     None

JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is OP's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 28.6.2007 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum) vide which the OP was directed as under : -

a) pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.23,570/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 14.9.2006 till realisation.

b) pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of mental tension and harassment; and

c) pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The case of the complainant is that he owns a tractor which was insured with the OP-appellants. On 1.6.2006, the tractor was damaged in an accident regarding which intimation was given to the OP-appellants. He submitted the bill of Rs.23,570/- for payment but the same was not made by the appellants and ultimately, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the driver was having a learner's licence and could not drive the tractor. The complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint to recover the amount of Rs.23,570/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.5500/- on account of mental torture, agony, inconvenience and litigation expenses.

3. The appellants admitted that the tractor was insured with them and was damaged in an accident. It was contended that the tractor was being driven by Avtar Singh who was having no licence to drive the same. The OPs had appointed an Surveyor who assessed the compensation of Rs.9083/- only. Their contention is that the claim was rightly repudiated.

4. The complainant filed rejoinder alleging that Avtar Singh driver was holding a learner's licence and had applied for the driving licence which was issued to him on 7.6.2006. It was disputed that Avtar Singh was driving the tractor in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. Both the parties were given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.

6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 28.6.2007 in terms stated above. The OP has challenged the same through the present appeal.

7. In this case, the learned counsel for the respondent last appeared on 26.11.2007 and thereafter, a number of adjournments were granted for arguments but none appeared for the respondent. Since the appeal was pending since 2007, it was not proper to keep the same pending for an indefinite period. Accordingly, we have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

8. The only question for determination is whether a person who is holding a learner's licence is competent to drive the tractor in the absence of a permanent licence. Our answer to this question is in negative. A licence is issued to the appellant under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to Rule 3(1)(b) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, in view of which, a person holding a learner's licence can drive a vehicle so long as he is accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. The next condition is that there is painted in the front and the rear of the vehicle on a plate or card affixed to the front and the rear, the letter 'L' in red on a white background. In the present case, no doubt, Avtar Singh was holding a learner's licence but there is no mention in the complaint if at the time when he was driving the tractor, the instructor having a permanent licence accompanied him. It is also not mentioned in the complaint if the plate showing 'L' was displayed on the back and the front of the tractor. There First Appeal No.1057 of 2007 4 was, therefore, violation of Rule 3 of the Rules ibid and Avtar Singh was not competent to drive the tractor.

9. It is true that Avtar Singh might have applied for a permanent licence and was issued the same on 7.6.2006 after the accident but the fact of the matter is that at the time of the accident, he was not having a permanent licence nor was he accompanied by an instructor nor had he displayed the letter 'L' on the tractor. We are unable to find any such provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules framed thereunder that a person who is holding a learner's licence may not follow the requirements of Rule 3(1)(b) and (c) if he had applied for a permanent licence. The mere fact that the permanent licence had been applied for by Avtar Singh which was granted to him within a week would not help the complainant to overcome the violations made by Avtar Singh. In this respect, we may refer to the case "New India Assurance Company Limited v. Gian Chand, II (2007) CPJ 163".

10. The learned District Forum in the impugned order has referred to certain authorities but the same are not helpful to a case in which compensation is claimed for own damage. The same may be helpful for obtaining a third party claim but has no relevance to the case in hand.

11. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum cannot sustain and the same is accordingly set aside. The result is that the complaint fails and the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

12. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.13,785/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 02.08.2007. This amount of Rs.13,785/- with interest, if any, accrued thereon be refunded by the registry to the appellants-OPs by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

Copies of the orders be supplied to the parties free of costs.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER September 06, 2012.

Paritosh