Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/109

Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A.N.Juneja aDv.

26 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 109 of  24.02.2015

Date of Decision          :   26.10.2015

 

 

1.Ajit Singh son of Shri Bhagat Singh.

2.Kuldeep Kaur wife of Ajit Singh,

   Both residents of House No.B-XXXI-235/233, Sarpanch Colony, Mundian 

   Kalan, Ludhiana.

….. Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Kunal Tower, Ludhiana through its Manager.

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, through its Managing Director/Director.

..…Opposite parties

 

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainants          :       Sh.A.N.Aneja, Advocate

For OPs                         :       Sh.Rajeev Abhi, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainants, parents of the deceased Sh.Jagjit Singh, the owner of vehicle i.e. Tata Ace bearing registration No.PB-10-DZ-0192, filed  complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that the said vehicle was insured with Ops for period from 10.11.2013 to 9.11.2014 on payment of premium of Rs.19,135/-. The owner/driver was insured for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, but the vehicle was insured for a sum of Rs.2,77,672/-. The said vehicle met with an accident on 8.10.2014, when the son of the complainants was coming from Amritsar to Ludhiana in the above said vehicle. That accident took place near Army School, Gudana, P.S.Dhilwan, District Kapurthala. FIR No.51 dated 9.10.2014 regarding that accident was registered at P.S.Dhilwan, District Kapurthala. Above said vehicle was totally damaged in the accident. A claim was lodged with Ops after complying with all the formalities and necessary documents even were submitted. Ops are liable to pay Rs.2,77,672/-, the value of the vehicle and even they are liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, the amount insured for driver/owner. Complainants were fully dependent on deceased. The claim has been repudiated by Ops and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- also claimed in addition to the above referred insurance amount.

2.                On appearance, OPs filed their joint written statement by claiming interalia as if complaint barred under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. Besides, it is claimed that Goods Carrying Package Policy was obtained by Sh.Jagjit Singh for the vehicle in question for covering risk of damage to the vehicle and owner/driver. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the vehicle can be driven only by the person holding an effective driving license at the time of accident. Intimation regarding accident was submitted by Sh.Ajit Singh complainant, father of deceased Jagjit Singh. Sh.Sunil Chawla, an IRDA approved surveyor was appointed for assessing the loss of damage of vehicle. The said surveyor assessed loss of damage of vehicle to the tune of Rs.2,52,172/- after deduction of salvage value of Rs.25,000/- through report dated 25.11.2014. Sh.Jagjit Singh was not holding valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question. The vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle, but Sh.Jagjit Singh was holding a driving license authorizing him to drive LMV(Non Transport Vehicle) for the period from 14.2.2012 to 13.2.2032. The said driving license was not having an endorsement for authorizing  said Jagjit Singh to drive a transport vehicle. So claim after due scrutiny was repudiated on 22.01.2015 on the ground that the driver Sh.Jagjit Singh was not having a valid driving license. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of Ops and the claim was rightly repudiated. Complainants are alleged to be estopped by their act and conduct from filing the complaint because of concealment of material facts. Complicated question of law and facts are involved and as such it is claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction. Besides, it is claimed that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties because all legal heirs of Jagjit Singh are not impleaded as parties to the present complaint. Even the complainants have got no locus standi to file the present complaint. Contract of insurance is binding upon the parties with all its terms and conditions. Admittedly, the owner/driver was fully insured for personal accident claim on payment of additional premium of Rs.100/-. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that complainants are not entitled to the compensation.

3.                Complainants to prove their case tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 Sh.Ajit Singh as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Sh.Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Ms.Meenu Sharma, Manager Legal of OPs and even tendered affidavit Ex.RB of Sh.Sunil Chawla, Surveyor appointed by OPs alongwith documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments submitted by OP alone. It is not submitted by the complainants. Oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.       Bone of contention remains as to whether Jagjit Singh (now deceased), Driver of the ill fated vehicle was holding valid and effective Driving License at the time of accident qua which FIR Ex.C-4 = Ex.R-4/5 was registered or not.  After going through certificate of registration of vehicle in question bearing registration No.PB-10-DZ-0192 (mention of which made in FIR Ex.C-4) namely Ex.C-1 = Ex.R-4/1, it is made out that the ill fated vehicle is of “LGV” class, which means that it is Light Goods Vehicle.  However, after going through copy of Driving License Ex.C-2= Ex.R2 = Ex.R-4/4, it is made out that deceased Jagjit Singh was holding Non Transport Driving License with validity up to 13.02.2032.  Vide this D/L Ex.C-2 Jagjit Singh was authorized to drive MCWG (Motorcycle without Gear) and LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) w.e.f. 14.02.2012 to 13.02.2032.  No endorsement on this D/L exists for authorizing Jagjit Singh to drive Goods Vehicle or Transport Vehicle.   Perusal of insurance policy cover note of the vehicle in question Ex.C-3 = Ex.R-3 establishes that above said vehicle was insured with OP for period from 10.11.2013 to Midnight of 09.11.2014 under Goods Carrying Package Policy, which means that the same was insured for plying the vehicle in question for transportation purposes.  In view of all this documentary evidence available on record, we have no hesitation in holding that though the vehicle in question was insured under Goods Carrying Package Policy, being Goods Vehicle, but despite that its driver Jagjit Singh was not holding driving License to drive the Lights Goods or Light Transport Vehicle.  So certainly deceased was not holding valid and effective Driving License to drive the vehicle of the description, which he actually was driving at the time of accident.  Submission of counsel of the complainant to the contrary has no force. 

7.       After going ratio of case Ashok Gangadhar Maratha Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3181, it is made out that Light Motor Vehicle cannot always mean a Light Goods Carriage, because it can be a Non-Transport Vehicle also.  In view of this, counsel for complainant vehemently contends that LMV driving License of complainant legally authorized him to drive the Light Goods Transport Vehicle in question.  However, that submission of counsel for complainant has no force because in the reported case it was not pleaded that permit to ply vehicle in question as Transport Vehicle was available and Nor any proof in that respect was produced.  In absence of this proof and pleadings, it was held that person authorized to drive LMV cannot be said to be having no effective driving license to drive the Light Goods Vehicle.  However, by relying on law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Angad Kol & Ors II (2009) ACC 313 (SC), it has been held by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in case ICICI Lombard General Insurance Com. Ltd Vs Mainuddin I (2015) CPJ 328, that a driver holding Light Motor Vehicle driving license at the time of accident would not be deemed to be holding a valid driving license for driving the Light Goods Vehicle.  This position emerged after amendment of 28.03.2001 of Motor Vehicle Act.  So the latest law on the subject is the law laid down in case of Angad Kol (supra) by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  Being so by necessary implications, it has to be held that law laid down in case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (ibid) has been over ruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India itself subsequently in case of Angad Kol.  As per the latest position a driving license for transport vehicle is issued for three years, but the driving license for Light Motor Vehicle is issued for 20 years.  In the case before us also the driving license Ex.C-2 = Ex.R-2 = Ex.R4/4 issued by Driving License Authority in favour of Jagjit Singh for 20 years qua Non-Transport Vehicle or Motorcycle without Gear and as such certainly deceased Jagjit Singh was possessing not valid and effective driving license to drive the Light Goods Vehicle in question.  So certainly the ill fated vehicle was driven by its deceased driver in violation of terms and conditions of the Goods Carrying Package Policy Ex.R-3 = Ex.C-3 of this case.  In view of the breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy in question, repudiation of the claim through letter Ex.R-1 = Ex.C-6 is fully justified.  Being so there is no deficiency in service on part of OPs, because the parties are bound by the terms of contract and nothing can be added or subtracted to these terms as per law laid down in cases of Indo Swift Limited Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors IV (2012) CPJ 148 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Harchand Rai Chandan Lal IV (2004) CPJ 15 (SC); Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd I(2009) CPJ 6 (SC).  As the terms of the contract of insurance are binding on the parties and as such in view of the breach of terms and conditions thereof in the case before us as referred above, the repudiation of the claim is quite proper, particularly when as per law laid down in case of Sandeep Kumar Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd and Anr II(2014) CPJ 505 (NC), it has been held that for purpose of driving Transport Vehicle, endorsement of the same is required on the driving license enabling a driver to drive the Light Transport Motor Vehicle.  That endorsement on D/L Ex.R-2 = Ex.C-2 = Ex.R4/4 in the case before us is missing and as such Jagjit Singh due to holding of driving license of Light Motor Vehicle was not competent to drive Light Goods Transport Vehicle.  Even, in case of Prakash Chand Bansal Vs Oriental Insurance Company and Anr II(2014) CPJ 12B (CN) (Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla), it has been held that if the driving license issued for 18 years, then the same implies as if it was issued for enabling the driver to drive Non-Transport Vehicle only.  Same is  the position in the case before us because here driving license Ex.R-2 = Ex.C-2 = Ex.R4/4 authorized Jagjit Singh to drive the Light Motor Vehicle for 20 years.  As per cases of Oriental Insurance Company and other Vs Seema III(2014) CPJ 112 (NC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Anumula Venkateswarlu III(2014) CPJ 392 (NC); ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd Vs Kusum Lata III(2014) CPJ 5A (CN) (Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun); National Insurance Company Ltd Vs S.Amirtharaj III(2012) CPJ 492(NC); Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Prahlad Kumar Sahu III(2009) CPJ 320 (Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur); National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Prithipati Sattiyya & Ors IV (2011) CPJ 133 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Jitendra Surya III(2011) CPJ 122 (NC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Prabhu Lal I(2008) CPJ 1 (SC) and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Inderjeet and others 2013 ACJ 2010 (Punjab & Haryana High Court),  a person holding license to drive Light Motor Vehicle does require requisite endorsement from Licensing Authority to enable him to drive transport vehicle, including light commercial vehicle.  In absence of such endorsement, the driver concerned cannot be said to be in possession of valid and effective driving license enabling him to drive Light Transport Vehicle.That endorsement is missing in the case before us and as such in view of the violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the repudiation of the claim is justified.              

9.       Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint merits dismissal and same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:26.10.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.

 

 

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                       Member                                      President