STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

National Insurance Company Ltd., having its Regional Office at SCO 332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its duly constituted Attorney Sh.Manmohan Singh Kalsi, Manager.

…..Appellant

V E R S U S

Bunty Goel, S/o Sh. Vir Bhan, H.No.377, Sec.17, Panchkula, Tehsil & District Panchkula.

…..Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh.Paul S.Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

 Sh.R.K.Singla, Advocate for the respondent.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.05.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OP(now appellant) as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP is directed to Rs.60,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs of e of receipt of the certified copy”.

2.               The facts, in  brief,  are that the complainant, got his Mohindra Pick-up, bearing Regd. No. HR-68-8814, insured with the OP(now appellant), for the period from 05.12.2008 to 04.12.2009, after paying the requisite premium. He appointed one Ajay Chaudhari, as driver of the said vehicle, who was having a valid & effective driving licence, to drive the same. On 06.12.2008, the said vehicle, met with an accident, when it was being driven by aforesaid, Ajay Chaudhari and was badly damaged. The matter was reported to the OP, upon which, the Surveyor was appointed, who told the complainant, to get the vehicle, repaired and submit the bill to the Company, for passing the claim. Accordingly, the complainant, submitted the bills, alongwith all the requisite documents, for settlement of his claim, to the OP. However, no response was given by the OP, despite repeated requests, made by the complainant. Ultimately, the claim of the complainant, was repudiated, vide letter dated 10.3.2009, on the ground, that the driver of the vehicle, was not having a valid driving licence, for driving the same(vehicle), at the time of accident. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of repudiation of the claim of the complainant, by the OP, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               In reply, filed by the OP, the factual matrix of the case, was admitted. It was, however, stated that the vehicle being goods carrier, fell within the category of a transport vehicle and Ajay Chaudhari, Driver, who was driving the same, when it met with an accident, was only holding a driving licence for driving LMV/MCW, and, as such, was not legally authorized, to drive the same. It was further stated that no endorsement on the said driving licence of Ajay Chaudhari, had been made by the Transport Authority, legally authorizing him, to drive such a vehicle. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, as well as, the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the OP was well within its right, to legally and validly, repudiate the claim of the complainant. It was further stated that since the claim of the complainant, was legally and validly repudiated, there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

4.               The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.               After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the OP/appellant.

7.               We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.               The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, the vehicle, in question,  i.e. Mohindra Pick-up, bearing Regd. No. HR-68-8814, which was a goods carrier, and falling within definition of a transport vehicle, was got insured by the complainant, with the appellant, for the period from 05.12.2008 to 04.12.2009. He further submitted that Ajay Chaudhari, driver of the said vehicle, was not legally authorized to drive the same, as, he was having only a driving licence, for driving LMV/MCW vehicle. He further submitted, that the OP, thus, legally and validly, repudiated the claim of the complainant, but the District Forum, was wrong, in holding to the contrary.  He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.               On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the vehicle, fell within the category of a “Light Motor Vehicle” and not a transport vehicle. He further submitted that Ajay Chaudhari, Driver, thereof, was holding a valid licence, for driving LMV vehicle. He further submitted, that the vehicle, in question, was empty at the time, when it met with an accident. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal, and valid, deserves to be upheld.

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The first question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the vehicle in question, fell within the category of a transport vehicle or not. Earlier, the vehicle, in question, was registered with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh Administration (Copy of the registration certificate, is at page 16 of the District Forum file). It is evident, from this document, that originally the registration number of this vehicle was CH03 R9415, the nature of the same was shown to be LMV T (Transport) and the make thereof was described as ‘Mahindra Singa’. There is, no dispute, between the parties, that lateron, this vehicle was got registered by the complainant, with the Regional Transport Authority, Panchkula, Haryana (copy whereof is the registration certificate is Annexure R-5). At the time of registration of this vehicle with the Registering Authority, Panchkula, the registration number thereof, was changed as HR68 8814. The old number of the vehicle i.e. CH03 R9415, was also written, on the top of Annexure R-5. It was, in this document, that the nature of the vehicle was shown as ‘LMV’ and the make thereof, was shown as ‘Mahindra Singa Cab’. Since, the nature of the vehicle, which was originally registered with the Motor Vehicles Registering Authority, Chandigarh Administration, was shown to be LMV T (Transport), the question of change of nature thereof, as only ‘LMV’ in R-5, did not, at all arise. It was, thus, wrongly shown as only ‘LMV’ and not LMV T (Transport) in R-5. Not only this, even, it is evident from R-1, (copy of the insurance policy) that on the top thereof it was written as “Goods Carrying Commercial Vehicle (Open) Policy B Package”.  Even, the surveyor submitted his report R-7, to the Sr.Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 17, Chandigarh, stating therein, that it was a transport vehicle. From the aforesaid documents, it was proved beyond doubt, that the vehicle, in question, was a transport vehicle, used for transporting the goods. According to Section 2(21)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle, or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7,500] kilograms. The definition clearly reveals that even a transport vehicle, fell within the definition of LMV vehicle. The transport vehicle may be ‘light transport vehicle’ or may be a ‘light motor vehicle’. The District Forum, was thus, wrong in holding, that the vehicle, in question, was not LMV (Transport) vehicle. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being erroneous, are reversed.

11.            The next question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, Ajay Chaudhari, Driver, who was admittedly driving the vehicle, at the time of accident, was holding a valid and effective driving licence, for driving the transport vehicle, or not. Undisputedly, a distinction between an effective licence, granted for transport vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which lays down the necessity of driving licence, reads as under:-

“(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle[ other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub- section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do”.

Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence. Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prescribes the form and contents of licences to drive, reads as under:-

“10. Form and contents of licences to drive-

(1)      Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2)      A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-

(a)      to (c) x x x x x

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) transport vehicle;

(i)       road-roller;

(j)       motor vehicle of a specified description”.

12.            The distinction between a ‘light motor vehicle’ and a ‘transport vehicle’ is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle, but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence, is required to be obtained. The  distinction between the `transport vehicle`, `light commercial vehicle` and a `passenger vehicle`, can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of period of three years, in  case of an effective licence to drive a `transport vehicle`, whereas, in case of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years. In the instant case, it is evident from copy of the driving licence, (at page 21 of the District Forum file) of Ajay Chaudhari, Driver, that it was valid from 28.08.2007 to 27.08.2027 i.e. for 20 years. It did not authorize Mr. Ajay Chaudhari, Driver, to drive a transport vehicle. On the other hand, it only entitled him to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). Clauses (14), (21),(28) and (47) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, make it clear, that if the vehicle is a “Light Motor Vehicle” but falls within the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence is separately required under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding a LMV Non-Transport driving licence, cannot ply a transport vehicle. Even, it is evident from the certificate of verification report of driving licence, furnished by the Registering & Licensing Authority, Chandigarh Administration,  (at page 72 of the District Forum file), that the person namely Ajay Chaudhari, holding licence for LMV/MCW, was not authorized to drive a transport vehicle. The licence was not endorsed, as required, under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for driving a transport/goods carrier vehicle. The District Forum, thus, fell into a grave error, in holding that Ajay Chaudhari, Driver, was legally authorized to drive the vehicle, in question, the nature whereof, was a transport vehicle. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, also being erroneous, are reversed.

13.            The Counsel for the appellant, also placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal, 2008(1) CPC 239 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Angad Kol and Others  2009 ACJ 1411 (SC) and First Appeal No.1533 of 2008, decided on 11.05.2011, tilted as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattan Singh, in support of his contention, that the driver holding a licence, for driving ‘LMV Non-Transport Vehicle’ was not legally authorized to drive a transport vehicle. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal`s case (supra), the driver was having a licence to ply light Motor Vehicle, whereas, the vehicle was heavy transport vehicle. In these circumstances, it was held by the Apex Court, that the said driver was not legally authorized to drive the vehicle, in question, and the Insurance Company, could not  be made liable, on account of damage caused to the same (vehicle). In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd`s case (supra), the driver was holding a LMV driving licence, whereas, he was driving a goods transport vehicle. The licence of the driver, was valid for 20 years. Under these circumstances, it was held that the Insurance Company, was right, in repudiating the claim, submitted by the complainant, on account of the damage caused to the vehicle, in question. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Rattan Singh`s case (supra) decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is squarely applicable, to the facts of the instant case. It is, therefore, held that Ajay Chaudhari, driver of the vehicle, nature whereof, was a transport vehicle, was not legally authorized to drive the same, as, he was holding, only a licence for driving LMV/MCW. The findings of the District Forum, to the contrary, being erroneous, are reversed.

14.            The Counsel for the respondent/complainant, however, placed reliance on Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., (1999)6 SCC 620, in support of his contention that Ajay Chaudhari, Driver, was legally authorized to drive the vehicle, in question, especially, when it was empty, at the time of accident. The perusal of the facts of the  aforesaid case reveals that no specific principle of law, was laid down, therein, that a holder of licence, for driving LMV, could drive a transport vehicle. In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha`s case (supra), no documents, were placed, on record, by the Insurance Company, that, infact, the vehicle, in question, which was being driven by the driver, who was holding LMV licence, was a transport vehicle. It was, under these circumstances, that the Hon`ble Supreme Court, held that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant, by the Insurance Company was illegal. The facts of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha`s case (supra), are distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. Therefore, no help can be drawn therefrom, by the respondent/complainant.

15.            Even, in the complaint, it was, nowhere, stated by the complainant, that the vehicle, in question, was empty, at the time, it met with an accident. In the affidavit, filed by way of evidence, alongwith the complaint, this factum was also not mentioned by him. In the Intimation of Accident (copy whereof is Annexure R-2), it was not mentioned that the vehicle, in question, was empty, when it met with an accident. It was for the first time, that in R-3 document, that it was mentioned by the complainant, that the vehicle was empty. It means that, such a plea, taken by the complainant, in R-3, was only an afterthought. Since this fact was not mentioned, in the complaint, as also, in the affidavit, submitted by way of evidence, the same could not be considered, at the time of arguments, in the appeal. Under these circumstances, the submission of the Counsel for the respondent, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

16.            The repudiation of claim, was legally, and validly, made by the Insurance Company. The District Forum, was, wrong in holding, that the repudiation was illegal and invalid. The District Forum, was, also wrong in holding that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant.

17.            The order, passed by the District Forum, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. The impugned order is, thus,  liable to be set aside

18.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The impugned order is set-aside and the complaint stands dismissed.

19.            Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

20.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

November 1, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg