DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 49 OF 2015

Sabitri Nayak ,

W/O: Benudhar Nayak,

Permanent residence of At / PO: Niktimal, Via-Kesaibhal,

PS: Mahulpali, Dist: Sambalpur, At present residing

At: Back side of Office of Collectorate, Jharsuguda, PO: OMP Line,

PS/ Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………..…………………..…… Complainant.

                                           Versus 

Branch Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Jharsuguda Branch,

At: Kalimandir Road,

PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha……………………............................................. Opp. Party.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                 Shri N.K.Patel, Adv.

For the Opp. Party                                    Shri B.K.Purohit, Adv. & Associates.

Date of Order: 28.06.2016

Present

1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Shri S.K.Ojha, Member.

Shri S.L. Behera, President:-  In brief, fact of the case is that, the complainant is registered owner of one Mahindra Xylo bearing Regd. No.OR-02-BM-0611. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P Insurance company (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.) under a policy No.345604/31/2014/580 valid from 28.09.2013 to 27.09.2014.   During the continuance of the said insurance policy on dtd. 05.05.2014 at about 10.30 am the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant meet with an accident on SH-10 near Bhasma Petrol Pump causing sever damage. The matter of accident was reported to Police station as well as to the O.P Insurance company.  A surveyor was duly appointed by the O.P insurance company visited the accident spot. The complainant shifted her vehicle to Chahat Auto Care, Jharsuguda for repaired of the said vehicle incurred an expenditure of Rs.4,03,561.00P for repair and spare part  charges including labour charges. The said amount was paid by the complainant by borrowing the same from friends and relatives.  The bill which was issued by the repairer was submitted in the branch office of Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. ,Jharsuguda for processing  of the claim.  Thereafter insurance claim was preferred before the O.P. Insurance company but despite several approaches made by the complainant her claim was repudiated by the Insurance company, hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P and for payment of Rs. 4,03,561.00P towards damage and repairing cost with Rs.5,000/- as compensation.

2.         The O.P. Insurance company contested the case who claimed that due to violation of the policy condition they have repudiate the claim of the complainant. According to the O.P Insurance company at the material time of accident one Durga Oram was driving the insured

vehicle who was having valid driving license but the same was not effective.  The O.P. Insurance company denied to have rendered any deficient service in respect to the complainant due to the above stated reason.

3.         Both the parties have filed their respective relevant documents in support of their claim. It is not disputed that complainant was having insurance policy in respect to her vehicle and the said vehicle was met with an accident causing damage to it.  The complainant claim to have filed estimate cost of Rs.4,03,561.00P to be incurred in repairing the vehicle. 

4.         We have gone through the copy of Driving license particulars of the driver namely Durga Oram who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident ie. dt. 05.05.2014.  The said driving license was issued infavour of the driver on dtd. 20.01.2009 which was valid upto dtd. 20.06.2016 (for transport vehicle) and 19.01.2029 ( for non-transport vehicle) .  The said driving license authorized driver concerned to drive transport vehicle but as per the claim of the O.P. Insurance company on whose basis repudiation was made is that no endorsement was made in the said driving license to drive CARCC at the time of accident.  On verification of the driving license we do not found any endorsement specified in the said driving license which authorized the driver to drive CARCC but the vehicle was admittedly registered as passenger carrying vehicle.     (1)- Whether the Driving license of the driver of the complainant was valid and effective at the time of accident ? (2)- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed? If so, to what extend ?

            So far as issue No.1 is concerned, the O.P has categorically mentioned that during verification of DL in question it was found that the driver was not authorized to drive a passenger carrying motor vehicle.  The insured vehicle being a passenger carrying transport vehicle, the driver was not competent to drive it with that DL.  On the other hand the complainant claims that the said DL was valid and effective at the time of accident.  In order to resolved this dispute, we gone through the particulars of DL vide No. OR-2320090006419 issued by RTO, Jharsuguda issued on dt. 20.01.2009 in favour of Durga Oram and Certificate of Registration of vehicle in question.  There is a clear endorsement permitting the driver to drive light motor vehicle transports goods from dtd. 20.01.2009 and valid upto 20.06.2016. It is not in dispute that Durga Oram has license to drive Light Motor Vehicle having endorsement authorizing him to drive transport vehicle.  The stand of O.P is that there should be endorsement authorizing the driver to drive a passenger carrying motor vehicle.  In the absence of such endorsement, the license in question is not effective.

            Now it is required to discuss/analyze whether such endorsement is required as per law, or endorsement, authorizing to drive transport vehicle is sufficient to drive vehicle in question.  For this purpose it is essential to evaluate the definition of light motor vehicle defined U/S-10(d) of the Act, transport vehicle defined U/S-10(e) and Sec-2(47) of M.V Act, 1988.

Section 10(d) Light Motor Vehicle:

            A person holding such a license can drive any vehicle (other than two wheeler) of below stated description:

1.  Transport vehicle or Omnibus with gross vehicle weight up to 7,500 KG.
2. Motor car, Tractor, Road Roller with unladen weight up to 7,500 KG

Now all the vehicles with the above specification will come under the purview of LMV.

Transport Vehicle Sec-10 (e):

            The transport  vehicle has replace the following category of vehicle vided amendment 1994 in Motor Vehicle Act,1988.

1. Medium goods Vehicle.
2. Medium passenger Motor Vehicle.
3. Heavy Goods Vehicle.
4. Heavy passenger Motor Vehicle.

Further the word Transport Motor Vehicle has been defined in sec-2(47 of M.V Act,1988 as – Transport Vehicle means Public Service Vehicle, Goods Carriage, an Educational Institutional bus or a Private Service Vehicle, therefore it covers following four category of vehicle-

1. Public Service Vehicle.
2. Goods Carriage.
3. Educational institutional Bus.
4. Private Service Vehicle.

Thus, the holder of Transport Vehicle license is allowed to drive any medium/ heavy vehicle coming under Public Service Vehicle, Goods Carriage, Educational Institutional bus and Private service Vehicle.  Further it is essential to mention here that Transport Vehicle License can not be give unless one has held LMV License for the least of year.  In view of this legal position it is needless to mention that the holder of Transport Vehicle license can drive any LMV Vehicle as well may be goods or passenger carrying.  As the public service vehicle is already included in the definition of transport vehicle there is no necessity of further endorsement of passenger varying vehicle endorsement on the license to drive transport vehicle when it is use to drive passenger carrying vehicle. The complainant has also filed two numbers of citation of  Hon’ble High Court of Odisha Royal Kumar Naik Vrs. Maa Narayan RTS Dadakangia reported in 2011(1) OLR-467 and another decision of Apex Court between National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors reported in 2008(1) TAC-812(SC).

      In view of aforesaid analysis and discussion one can be easily draw instant interference that a person having Driving License Motor Vehicle with endorsement for transport Vehicle is competent or authorize to drive passenger Carrying Transport Vehicle.  In the present case the Driving License of the driver of the complainant is valid and effective even though there is no endorsement  to drive passenger Carrying Transport Vehicle, accordingly we do not find any forces in the submissions of O.P.

      So far as claim of complainant is concerned, the O.P. have surveyed the incident by appointing Surveyor who has assessed the loss for amount of Rs.2,65,000/- only. It is settle principle of law that the surveyor report cannot be disbelieved in the absence of

clear and cogent evidence contrary to the said report. Hence it is of our considered opinion to allow the complaint petition. Hence order as follows;

ORDER

 We direct the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.  2,65,000/- ( Rupees two lakh sixty five  thousand) only and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand) only towards mental agony and harassment including litigation costs, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which interest @ 10 % per annum will be charged till realization on the aforesaid awarded amount.

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 28^th  day of June’2016 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.

                         I Agree.         

       S.K.Ojha,Member                                                         S.L. Behera, President                    

              Dictated and corrected by me.

                                                     S.L. Behera, President.