State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Gurpritam Singh on 4 September, 2023
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.91 of 2021
Date of institution : 26.03.2021
Reserved on : 22.08.2023
Date of decision : 04.09.2023
United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Senior Branch
Manager, Rajpura having its regional office at SCO 136, Feroze
Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its duly constituted attorney.
.....Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Gurpritam Singh S/o Shri Yashpal Singh, H.No.1068, Jagdish Colony,
Rajpura.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala (in short, the "District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite party (in short 'OP'), under the Consumer Protection Act, was allowed with the following relief:-FA No.91 of 2021 2
"23. So due to our above discussion the complaint stands allowed and the OP is directed to pay the amount of Rs.4,46,941.30 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e.12.01.2018 till realization. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation."
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant was owner of Truck bearing Registration No.PB-11-BY-7001 and the same was being plied by him for earning his livelihood. The said truck was insured with OP, vide insurance policy valid from 16.05.2016 to 15.05.2017 for the sum assured of Rs.27.55 lacs. The father of the complainant Sh. Yashpal Singh, Ex- Driver of Indian Army, was working as driver on the said truck. Unfortunately, on 19.11.2016 the truck met with an accident within the jurisdiction of police station Solan(HP). The complainant immediately informed the OP and submitted all the required documents as desired by it. The OP deputed Sh. Bansal as Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-, but the OP repudiated the claim on the ground of validity of the driving license. The driver of the truck had got the driving license from licensing authority Kokrajhar, Assam during his service through Army Authorities and the said DL was valid on the date of accident and he was competent to drive the insured vehicle. The complainant further stated that Sh. Yashpal Singh, after his retirement, got issued another DL from licensing authority, Patiala with the impression that for doing the job of 'Driver' he had to get DL from FA No.91 of 2021 3 Civil Authorities. The complainant to show his bonafide supplied both the DLs to the OP but the OP rejected the genuine claim, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant filed the consumer complaint and sought directions against the OP to pay Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @12% for the damages caused to the vehicle and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. The complaint was contested by the OP, who filed written reply and raised certain legal objections, inter alia, that the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and the same was not maintainable. On merits, OP stated that on receipt of information of loss to the insured vehicle on 15.11.2016, it deputed Sh. Rajesh Kumar, approved 'IRDA Surveyor and Loss Assessor', to assess the loss. The said surveyor, vide his report dated 13.02.2017, assessed to loss to the tune of Rs.4,46,941.30 and further mentioned in the report that DL submitted by the complainant, had already expired on 09.10.2016, whereas the date of accident was 24.10.2016. The complainant also furnished a second driving license issued by D.T.O. Kokrajhar, Assam bearing No.14955/KOJ/T, which was valid from 22.12.2010 to 18.11.2018. The holding of two driving licenses at the same time during the existence of first driving license, is barred under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 12.01.2018 on the ground that the driver of the truck Sh. Yashpal Singh was having two driving licenses having different fathers name, which amounted to FA No.91 of 2021 4 violation of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions and the District Commission after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the complaint of the complainant, vide impugned order as above. Aggrieved with the same this appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP.
6. We have heard learned the counsel for the parties and have also gone through written submissions filed by them and the record of the case.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant/OP vehemently contended that the District Commission has erred in holding the appellant-insurance company liable inspite of the fact that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. The District Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was having two licenses. First license was issued by licensing authority Patiala on 10.03.2013, which was valid upto 09.10.2016, whereas the alleged accident took place on 24.10.2016. As such, this license was not valid at the time of accident as the same was expired before the date of accident. The second license was issued by DTO, Kokrajhar, Assam on 19.11.2015 and the same was valid till 18.11.2018 for HMV also. The second license was FA No.91 of 2021 5 issued, when the first license was already in existence and as per Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the 2nd license was not valid as two license cannot be issued at the same time. Therefore, the appellant/OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant. In support of his contentions the learned counsel relied upon judgments of Hon'ble High Court in the case of "Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha and others" 2015 ACJ 1005 and "Madan Lal and others Vs. Savita & Ors". 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 976 and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the District Commission allowed the complaint by correctly holding that Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act would not hit the claim of the owner. At the time of accident i.e. 24.10.2016 (wrongly mentioned as 19.11.2016 in the complaint), the driver was holding a valid driving license issued by licensing authority Assam and the same was also found to be genuine. The learned counsel further argued that the case of respondent/complainant is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.', 2020 ACJ 1218 and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
FA No.91 of 2021 6
10. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant got insured his vehicle i.e. Truck bearing Registration No.PB-11-BY-7001 from the OP vide insurance policy, Ex. C-2, which was valid from 16.05.2016 to 15.05.2017 for a sum assured of Rs.27.55 lacs. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident during the currency period of the policy. The intimation of the alleged accident was given by the respondent/complainant to the appellant/OP, who appointed a surveyor, namely; Sh. Rajesh Kumar. The said surveyor submitted final survey report dated 13.02.2017, Ex. OP-9 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,46,941.30. The OP after investigation, repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant, vide letter dated 12.01.2018, Ex. C-1, on the ground of validity of the driving license of the driver. Alleging deficiency in service, the respondent/complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission, which was allowed, vide impugned order as above. Aggrieved with the same this appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP for setting aside the same.
11. The foremost ground of appeal raised by the appellant/OP is that the District Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that the driver of the insured vehicle was holding two driving licences, which is against the provision of the Section 6 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1998, therefore the appellant/opposite party cannot be held liable to pay any insurable benefit to the respondent/complainant. To determine this point, we have carefully gone through the pleadings, evidence on record as well as impugned order. The appellant/OP repudiated the FA No.91 of 2021 7 claim lodged by respondent/complainant, vide repudiation letter dated 12.01.2018, Ex.C-1. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
"1. It was found that the DL of Sh. Yashpal Singh provided to the final surveyor at the time of Final Survey vide DH No.PB-1120090163104 (valid from 08.05.2009 to 09.10.2016.
2. You have furnished a second DL issued by DTO Kokrajhar vide DL No.14955/KOJ/T with validity of 22.12.2010 to 18.11.2018.
3. Section 6 of the Motor Vehicle Act is about Restriction on the holding of driving licenses. It says that no person shall, while he holds any driving license for the time being in force, hold any other driving license except a learner license or driving license issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 18. Meaning thereby a person is not empowered to hold two driving licenses at the same time during the existence of first driving license.
4. Therefore as per Section 6 of Motor Vehicle Act, for any person holding two driving licenses, the second driving license obtained by the person would be invalid for all practical purposes as the same was obtained in contravention of Provision 6 of M.V. Act 1998."
12. Now, question arises whether appellant/OP are justified in repudiating the claim of the respondent/complainant on the ground of validity of the DL of the driver of the insured vehicle or not? It is pertinent to mention here that first driving license (DL) bearing No.PB-1120090163104, Ex.C-3, issued by licensing authority Patiala, Punjab, was valid till 09.10.2016. The Insurance Company has admitted this fact in its repudiation letter that the said license was found expired at the time of loss. Moreover, the driver was not authorized to ply the vehicle in question, as the DL was for plying Light Motor Vehicles. The second DL bearing No.14955/KOJ/T, issued by Licensing Authority, Kokrajhar, Assam, was duly verified by the FA No.91 of 2021 8 appellant/OP from the concerned authorities, Ex. OP-6, and the same was found genuine and valid from 19.11.2015 to 18.11.2018 for plying the Heavy Motor Vehicles, which means that the Driver had only one valid driving license for plying the insured vehicle at the time of accident i.e. 24.10.2016. Even the surveyor, who was appointed by the insurance company, in his report has not given any observation or finding with regard to the DL as being fake or forged one. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Raj Rani" [1996 (2) PLR 495], wherein it has been held as under:
"10. In our considered view, the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance company has failed to prove that driving licence Exhibit R-1 was a forged or fabricated document. It was duly issued and renewed by the District Transport Officer, Patiala, till October 5, 1996, covering the period of accident. The Insurance Company got verified licence Mark R-1 through its surveyor. Hence the Tribunal rightly held that on the date of accident the driver was having a valid driving licence."
In the present case also, there is nothing on the record to show that the second driving licence (Ex.OP-3), which was for plying heavy motor vehicles, was forged and fabricated, rather the same was duly verified from the concerned authorities and was found to be genuine. Moreover, it is the categoric stand of the respondent/complainant that driver of the said truck was a retired employee of the Indian Army and since his first license did not have endorsement for driving Heavy Motor Vehicles, therefore he bonafidely applied for the second license so that he could ply heavy motor vehicles as well and an endorsement FA No.91 of 2021 9 to that effect was made on the said DL. Hence, keeping in view the law laid down by the Division Bench of High Court in the case of Raj Rani (supra), it was incumbent on the appellant/insurance company to produce on record, the relevant evidence to show that the same was forged and fabricated.
13. Further, reliance has been placed on the citation "Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd." 2020 ACJ 1218, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been observed as under:-
"12. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the insurance company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the insurance company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable."
In the present case, the owner/complainant has found the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a valid driving license. The insurance company has failed to prove on record that the insured was well aware of the fact that holding of two driving licenses by the driver is barred under the Motor Vehicles Act. The question whether there is a violation of the Section 6 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by holding two driving licenses is an issue to be addressed by the licensing authorities. Merely, because a person was FA No.91 of 2021 10 holding two driving licences cannot be pleaded as a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and made a ground for absolving the insurance policy of its liability, once the license is not found to be forged and fabricated. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/OP in the cases of "Shri Ram Gen. Insurance Co's and Madan lal's (Supra) are not applicable as the facts of the same are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the present case the first license of the driver was already expired at the time of accident, therefore, the driver was holding only one valid license when the accident occurred. The District Commission has rightly observed in the impugned order, the relevant part of the same is reproduced as under:-
"20. So it is clear that Yashpal Singh was not authorities to drive heavy motor vehicle as per licence which was made from Patiala and report is Ex.OP5 and he is competent to drive heavy motor vehicle as per the report, Ex.OP6 of DTO, Kokrajhar. No doubt he was having two driving licence but he was authorized to drive HMV on the basis of driving licence issued from Assam. The complainant has also attached copy of the licence which was made from Assam,Ex.C4 and as per the complainant Yashpal Singh was serving in the Army as Seopy and he got issued the licence while he was serving in the state of Assam and he was the driver in the army.
21. So as per both the verification reports Sh.Yashpal Singh is competent to drive the truck on the basis of verification report Ex.OP6 of licence issued from Kokrajhar and he was not allowed to drive truck on the basis of licence made from Punjab and verification report is Ex.OP5.In this verification report, it is not mentioned that this licence was also valid for HMV. So, it is clear that Sh.Yashpal Singh was having only one licence for driving HMV as such the law relied upon by the OP is not helpful to it."FA No.91 of 2021 11
Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant/OP is not justified in repudiating the genuine claim of the respondent/ complainant. Hence, there is no force in the contention raised by the appellant/OP and the same is hereby rejected.
14. Sequel to our above discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly decided the case and there is no material infirmity and irregularity in the order of the District Commission. Finding no merit in this appeal filed by the appellant/OP, the same is hereby dismissed & the order of the District Commission is upheld.
15. The appellant/OP had deposited an amount of Rs.2,72,556/- at the time of filing the appeal with this Commission. This amount alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER September 04, 2023.
(Dv)