State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Dr. S.K. Sharma on 11 November, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 47 / 2012
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
through its Divisional Manager
Divisional Office, 1st Floor
4-B, Sachdeva Colony, Haridwar Road
Dehradun
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Dr. S.K. Sharma S/o Sh. Jai Narain Sharma
R/o Jolly Grant, Bhaniawala
District Dehradun
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. Suresh Gautam, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 11/11/2014
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is insurer's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 02.12.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 22 of 2011. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant - opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 83,420/- to the respondent - complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.2
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UA07-J-8044. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured with the appellant - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period from 20.01.2010 to 19.01.2011 for sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. During the validity of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 19.04.2010. The intimation of the accident of the insured vehicle was given to the insurance company and the complainant lodged his claim with the insurance company. The complainant submitted the bills of repairs to the tune of Rs. 1,52,367/- with the insurance company. However, the insurance company vide letter dated 05.01.2011 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that on the date of the accident, the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the driving licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was valid upto 17.04.2010; that the said driving licence was renewed for a period of three years for the period from 16.08.2010 to 15.08.2013; that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence for the period from 18.04.2010 to 15.08.2010; that since on the date of the accident, i.e., 19.04.2010, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence and hence the claim was not payable and was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 05.01.2011 and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
34. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 02.12.2011 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company and have also perused the record.
6. At the time of the accident, the vehicle in question was being driven by Sh. Prem Singh S/o Sh. Khillu Singh and he was holding driving licence No. UK-1420030002740. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the said driving licence had expired on 17.04.2010 and the same was renewed for the period from 16.08.2010 to 15.08.2013 (TR) and for the period from 16.08.2010 to 15.08.2015 (NT), as is evident from the copy of the driving licence verification report dated 01.09.2010 of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Budakoti, insurance investigator (Paper No. 27) as well as the copy of particulars of the driving licence of Sh. Prem Singh obtained on Form 54 from the licensing authority (Paper No. 28). The accident in question had taken place on 19.04.2010. Thus, on the date of the accident, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, as the same had expired on 17.04.2010, i.e., before the date of the accident.
7. From above, it is indisputably clear that the driver Sh. Prem Singh did not hold any driving licence for the period from 18.04.2010 to 15.08.2010 and during which period, the accident took place on 19.04.2010. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for renewal of driving licences, which reads as under:
4"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: ...........................".
8. A bare perusal of the above provision shows that the driving licence is renewed in terms of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder. The proviso appended to Section 15(1) of the Act in no uncertain terms states that whereas the original licence granted despite expiry remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date of expiry, if any application for renewal thereof is filed thereafter, the same would be renewed from the date of its renewal. There is nothing on record that the driver Sh. Prem Singh had applied with the licensing authority for renewal of his driving licence within a period of thirty days from 17.04.2010, the last date of validity of his driving licence. However, the record shows that Sh. Prem Singh did not make any application to the licensing authority for renewal of his driving licence within a period of thirty days from the date of expiry of his driving licence and this is the reason that his driving licence was renewed w.e.f. 16.08.2010 and not 18.04.2010 and he did not hold any driving licence for the period from 18.04.2010 to 15.08.2010. The District Forum has wrongly considered the proviso of Section 14(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which says, "provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry". This proviso is to considered in the light of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for renewal of driving licence and 5 the said Section clearly stipulates that in case the application for renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed w.e.f. the date of its renewal and not from the retrospective effect.
9. Thus, from the material on record and also in the light of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is abundantly clear that Sh. Prem Singh was not holding any driving licence on the date of the accident, i.e., 19.04.2010 and the District Forum has wrongly held that his driving licence was valid on the date of the accident.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company pressed into service a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others; III (2008) ACC 776 (SC), wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the driving licence renews automatically only when application for renewal of driving licence is filed within period of 30 days from the date of its expiry and in case an application for renewal of driving licence is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed w.e.f. date of its renewal. It was further held that as the renewal was not automatic, driver of vehicle can not be said to be holding valid driving licence on the date of the accident and there was breach of contract of insurance on the part of the insured and the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company also cited decision dated 01.05.2013 of the Hon'ble National Commission rendered in Revision Petition No. 228 of 2011; National Insurance Company Limited Vs. The Dhana Khurd Co- op. Transport Society Limited. In the said case, the driving licence of the driver had expired on 26.01.1995 and it was later on renewed for the period from 26.09.1995 to 25.09.1998. The accident had taken 6 place on 16.05.1995. It was held that the driver was not having an valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident and the complainant was not entitled to any compensation from the insurer.
11. The District Forum has not properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has wrongly allowed the consumer complaint per impugned order, which can not legally be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. As such, the appeal is fit to be allowed
12. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order impugned dated 02.12.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 22 of 2011 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K