State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bhagwat Singh Negi vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 24 August, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 54 / 2009
Sh. Bhagwat Singh Negi S/o late Sh. Joga Singh Negi
R/o Village Akhand Athoorwala, K.P. Kshetra
P.O. Koti, Near Airport
District Dehradun
...Appellant / Complainant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited
through its Branch Manager
9, Subhash Road, Dehradun
......Respondent / Opposite Party
Sh. H.L. Khanna, Learned Attorney for the Appellant
Sh. Niranjan Prakash, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 24/08/2011
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is complainant's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 07.03.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing his consumer complaint No. 121 of 2008.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the complainant got his vehicle bearing registration No. UA07-C-8101 insured with the opposite party - The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 02.06.2006 to 01.06.2007 at sum of Rs. 6,90,000/-. On 21.03.2007, the insured vehicle met with an accident and fell into a 650 feet deep ditch. The claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that on the date of 2 the accident, the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence as there was no hill endorsement on the driving licence of the driver so as to authorise him to drive the vehicle on hill roads. 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 and pleaded that the there was no hill endorsement on the driving licence of the driver and, as such, the claim was rightly repudiated and no deficiency in service has been made by the insurance company.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the consumer complaint vide order dated 07.03.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard learned attorney for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent and have also perused the record.
6. Section 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 reads as under:
"193. Endorsement of certain licences for hill roads - No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a registering authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such registering authority or in the case of a public service vehicle hired by tourists, by the registering authority of the State with which reciprocal 3 arrangements on the point have been agreed upon."
7. The vehicle in question was a truck (goods vehicle). Sh. Dinesh Lal S/o Sh. Sunder Lal, the driver of the vehicle, was issued driving licence to drive LMV (T) on 31.01.2003, which was later on renewed for the period from 31.01.2006 to 30.01.2009. The driving licence was further endorsed for driving HTV (Heavy Transport Vehicle) on 04.01.2006 and hill endorsement was made in the driving licence on 21.05.2007. The accident in question took place on 21.03.2007. Thus, on the date of the accident, there was no hill endorsement in the driving licence of the driver. Section 193 of The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 clearly prohibits plying of public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road by a person who has not been permitted by the registering authority and in whose driving licence, there was no hill endorsement so as to authorise him to drive the vehicle on hill roads. There is no dispute that the accident took place in the hills of the State of Uttarakhand. Thus, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that on the date of the accident, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle on hill roads as there was no hill endorsement on his driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
8. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Rajinder Singh Negi Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited; IV (2008) CPJ 250 (NC), has held that the "hill road endorsement" on driving licence is not a mere formality, which can be brushed aside in a State, which is generally hilly. In the said case, there was no hill endorsement on the driving licence of the driver at the time of the accident. It was held that the driving licence was not in conformity with the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant Motor Vehicle Rules and 4 the absence of hill endorsement in the driving licence, would render the driver licence invalid and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.
9. Learned attorney for the complainant - appellant argued that the claim can only be repudiated in case of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and that the parties to the contract of insurance must observe good faith. In the instant case, the driving licence of the driver was, as stated above, not valid on the date of the accident as there was no hill endorsement on the driving licence of the driver and the same was made on 21.05.2007 and whereas the accident took place on 21.03.2007. Thus, on the date of the accident, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle on hill roads and, therefore, the insured has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance, which resulted in vitiation of the contract of insurance and the insurance company was absolutely justified in repudiating the claim and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.
10. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the case and has passed a reasoned order, which does not require any interference and the consumer complaint has rightly been dismissed. Thus, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K