Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant being the owner of the vehicle bearing No.MP-18-7473 had the policy for the vehicle from the Op covering the period from 22.12.2005 to 21.12.2006. It is alleged inter-alia that the vehicle met accident on 23.03.2006. Thereafter the matter was informed to the insurer and the police. The insurer deputed surveyor who computed the loss at Rs.56,310/-. But the complainant made submission to re-imburse Rs.2,41,252.01 towards repairing of the vehicle. Further the Op repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver has no effective driving license to drive the hazardous material. Challenging said repudiation the complaint was filed.
4. The OP filed written version stating that at the time of accident the driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle containing hazardous substance although he has got driving license LMV,MGV and HGV issued by DTO,Dhanbad. Therefore, claiming the loss assessed amount as illegal for which they have repudiated the claim.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ Considering to all these facts we hereby made liable to the OPs for their acts by not settling the dispute of the complainant and thereby direct the OPs to pay Rs.56,310/- (Rupees Fiftysix thousand three hundred ten) only to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date of filing the Surveyor report i.e. 02.01.2007 till realization. Further the OPs are directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) only towards cost of this case.
All the above orders are to be carried within one month from the date of receiving of this order failing which 3 % extra interest per annum shall be chargeable over and above all the awarded amount from the date of this order till realization.
Close the case accordingly on part merit of the complaint petition.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the provision of law properly. According to him Section-14(2(a) of the M.V.Act bars the driver to drive the vehicle carrying hazardous substance unless he is authorized to drive so. Since, in the instant case the driver has no such endorsement in the driving license to drive the vehicle containing hazardous substance, they have repudiated the claim rightly. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the provision of law and fact. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the driving license although has no endorsement of same but can not be termed as illegal because Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mukund Dewangan-Vrs-Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. disposed on 3rd July,2017 that the endorsement whether transport or non-transport need no mention in the driving license. So, he supports the impugned order.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that during currency of the policy the vehicle met accident. It is also not in dispute that the driver of the vehicle having LMV,MGV,HGV driving license who was carrying the vehicle at the time of accident. Section 14(2(a) of the Act is as follows:-
A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall –
- in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus.
10. The aforesaid provision of law does never deny to drive the vehicle containing hazardous substance. In the instant case even if the vehicle was carrying oil, in absence of any provision showing any endorsement to drive the vehicle containing hazardous substance same is not invalid. The provision is also clear for hazardous substance about durability of license which is only for one year unlike other type of vehicles are concerned.
11. With due regard to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (Supra) has clearly held that the driving license whether LMV,MGV and HGV needs no mention of transport or non-transport vehicle. In the instant case there being clear driving license of LMV,MGV and HGV, the non mention of transport or non-transport is not fatal to hold the driving license as invalid in view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. So, the repudiation of claim on this ground is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
12. Further we find that the surveyor has computed the loss at Rs.56,310/-. There is no challenge to such amount and it is settled in law that the claim should be settled on the basis of the report of the surveyor unless such report is defective or bias one. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the surveyor has already computed the loss and we agree to award the claim as per amount settled by the surveyor. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, we therefore allowed Rs.56,310/- as assessed by the surveyor and reduced the rate of interest from 8 % to 6 %. Rest of the terms and conditions of the impugned order will remain unaltered. The order is to be carried out by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of this order,failing which it will carry 8 % from the date of impugned order till date of payment.
13. In view of aforesaid discussion, we do not want to interfere with the impugned order except modification of same as stated above. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
