State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs S. Gurmeet Singh on 20 April, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.355/2010
Instituted on : 29/05/2010
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through - Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Near Balsamaj Mandir,
Dhamtari (C.G) .... Appellant
Vs.
Shri S. Gurmeet Singh,
S/o Shri Jora Singh,
R/o : Indira Ward,
Jagdalpur, District Baster (C.G) .... Respondent
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for respondent.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 20/04/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.05.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baster at Jagdalpur (C.G), (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No.04/2006, whereby the complaint of the respondent/complainant against the appellant/Insurance Company was allowed and the appellant/Insurance Company, has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.56,263/- to the respondent/complainant on account // 2 // of loss to the insured vehicle and also to pay simple interest @ 10% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from date of incident i.e. 10.03.2004 till the date of payment in lieu of compensation for mental agony.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent/complainant Mr. S. Gurmeet Singh, is the registered owner of Tanker No.C.G.17/ZC-0434, which suffered road accident on 10.03.2004 and was damaged. At that time driver Mr. Chetu Ram was driving the vehicle and the number of his driving licence was C-669/BTR/2000. The complainant/respondent was required to spend a sum of Rs.1,48,850/- on the repairing of the vehicle. He preferred claim before the Insurance Company for reimbursement of the amount spent on repairing of the vehicle. When the incident was reported to the Insurance Company, then Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who as per report dated 05.05.2004 assessed the loss to the insured vehicle payable by the Company as Rs.56,263/-, but the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant, on the ground that driver of the vehicle Mr. Chetu Ram, was not having endorsement on his driving licence for driving hazardous and dangerous goods vehicle and therefore, it was material violation of the terms of the insurance policy, so the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. When the consumer complaint was filed, then also same // 3 // defence was taken by the Insurance Company before the District Forum.
3. Learned District Forum has not agreed with the contention raised by the Insurance Company and passed the award for the amount, which was assessed by the Surveyor as payable for damages to the insured vehicle. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company to challenge the award, on the ground that driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of incident.
4. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that hazardous materials are those materials, which are highly inflammable and Diesel is also one among them and therefore, as per requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the vehicle which carries such hazardous, substance is a vehicle to drive which a special licence, is required. He submitted that District Forum has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and has ignored the fact that driver of the vehicle in question, was not having licence as per Rule 9(3) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 to drive a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. It has also been submitted that for the purpose of // 4 // getting such authorization, the driver was required to undergo a training programme from a recognized training institute and then only endorsement to that effect, can be made on the driving licence of the driver.
6. The particulars of the driving licence of driver Mr. Chetu Ram, which has been filed by the counsel for the appellant before us, shows that initially driveling licence was issued in the name of Mr. Chetu Ram for driving Light Motor Vehicle on 03.04.2005 and the period of it‟s validity was upto 17.08.2020. Later on endorsement permitting him to drive Heavy Goods Vehicle w.e.f. 03.04.2002 was made on the licence, which was valid upto 03.04.2005 and was renewed thereafter. Thereafter endorsements for permitting him to drive hazardous and dangerous goods vehicle from 26.11.2005 to 25.11.2006, then from 27.11.2006 to 28.11.2007 and then from 03.12.2007 to 02.12.2008 and so on, were made on the driving licence of the driver Mr. Chetu Ram.
7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the date of incident was 10.03.2004 and on that date, the driver Mr. Chetu Ram, was not having any endorsement on his licence permitting him to drive the vehicle containing dangerous and hazardous goods. From the copy of particulars of driving licence of the driver, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant appears correct, because such endorsement was made for the first time w.e.f.
// 5 // 26.11.2005, but at the same time it can very well be taken note of the fact that before making such endorsement, driver must have undergone a training for driving the vehicle containing dangerous and hazardous goods and thereafter only endorsement on his driving licence, was made. In fact it is case of the respondent/complainant that driver of the vehicle in question, had undergone a training programme with Vishakha Safety Council, Vishakhapatnam (A.P.) on 21.09.2004. Thus, the training was actually imparted by a competent Institution to the driver and thereafter he started driving the vehicle containing dangerous and hazardous goods.
8. It is also debatable as to whether Diesel can be said to be a hazardous substance or not. Rule 91 of Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 contains the definition of dangerous or hazardous goods, which says that "dangerous or hazardous goods" means the goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life specified in Tables I, II, and III to Rule 137 and Tables I, II and III to Rule 137 nowhere talks of Diesel. Substances like Acetaldehyde, Acetic acid, Acetone etc. have been enumerated in the Table III to Rule 137 and Coal Tar is also there, but specifically Diesel has not been named anywhere in any of the list. It is true that Coal Tar is also a Petroleum Product and Diesel is also a Petroleum Product, but, nevertheless unless it is specifically named in the list containing names of hazardous and toxic chemical // 6 // or substances, it can not be said that Diesel, itself was hazardous or dangerous substance.
9. Thus, we find that driver of the vehicle in question obtained training from the recognized institution for driving the vehicle containing dangerous or hazardous substances, but there was no endorsement in his driving licence at the time of incident permitting him to drive the vehicles containing dangerous and hazardous goods. It is also doubtful as to whether such separate licence, was necessary or not for driving a vehicle containing Diesel. In view of this, the action of the Insurance Company of repudiating the claim in toto, can not be justified.
10. One Mr. Ramkaran Ratre was examined by the respondent/complainant as witness, who works as Assistant Gade-2 in the office of R.T.O. Jagdalpur. In the last sentence of deposition he said that the vehicle „tanker‟ comes in the category of hazardous and dangerous goods vehicle. No re-examination of this witness was done by the complainant. Though the person who deposed that fact was not competent to say anything in respect of legal provisions and provision of law, can only be shown by drawing attention towards such provisions, but considering this statement also as well as the fact that Diesel, can not be said in strict sense to be hazardous or dangerous substance, the action of Insurance Company of repudiating // 7 // the claim in toto was not justified and the Insurance Company was required to consider the claim of the respondent/complainant at least on non-standard basis and to pay the amount on that basis.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal in part and modify the award passed by the District Forum and direct the appellant / Insurance Company to pay 75% of the amount assessed by the Surveyor, along with simple interest from the date of complaint till date of payment on the rate awarded by the District Forum. In addition, the Insurance Company will be required to pay the cost of litigation, which is quantified as Rs.5,000/-, to the respondent/complainant.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/04/2011 /04/2011 /04/2011