Haryana

StateCommission

A/585/2015

BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                               First Appeal No.585 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution: 13.07.2015

                                                               Date of Decision: 11.07.2016

 

M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited having its office at SCF 23, 1^st Floor, Subhash Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak and having its Corporate Office, 1 DLF Industrial Plot 2^nd Floor, Moti Nagar, Near Metro Station, New Delhi through its Senior Executive, Legal Claims Mr.Dushyant Meena.

 

…..Appellant

Versus

 

 

Manoj Kumar son of Sh.Madan Lal Prop.Akash Publishing House, Jat Gazatte Gali, Railway Road, Rohtak.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate counsel for appellant.

                             Shri.Vipul Dharmani, Advocate counsel for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

                   It was alleged by complainant that  his vehicle bearing registration No.HR46B/8014 was insured by Opposite Party/appellant and policy was valid from 12.06.2009 to 11.06.2010.  On 31.07.2009 at about 5 P.M. a cow suddenly came in front of the vehicle and to save the impact driver applied breaks,  due to which it lost balance and hit a tree. As vehicle was badly damaged, a surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss, but, his claim was repudiated without any reasonable ground.

2.                         Appellant filed reply and alleged that driver Vinod Kumar was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He was having licence to driver scooter, motor  cycle, car and jeep only, whereas vehicle in question was LCV Bolaro Camper utility vehicle. He was not authorized to drive this vehicle and in this way terms and conditions of insurance policy were breached. As per Section 31 of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988 (in short ‘M.V.Act’) a person cannot drive a transport vehicle unless it is specifically mentioned in the driving licence. As per section 2 sub section 47 of M.V.Act transport vehicle means a “goods carriage” also. When terms and conditions of insurance policy were violated he was not entitled for any compensation and his claim was rightly repudiated.

3.                         After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Rohtak (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 04.05.2015 and directed as under:-

“It is observed that the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor. As such opposite party is directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.224277/- alongwith interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 28.10.2010 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2200/-”

 

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.                Arguments heard. File perused.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the driver was having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.) also covers light goods carriage vehicle as opined by Hon’ble National Commission in Kulwant Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2015 (1) PLJ 206,  (2015) 2  SCC page 186.  Learned District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that the driver was having valid driving license at the time of accident. Appeal has no merits and the same be dismissed.

7.                This argument cannot help the complainant. From the perusal of the copy of driving license Ex.R3 and report of Licensing Authority, Rohtak Ex.R21, it is clear that driver Vinod Kumar was authorized to drive Scooter, motor cycle, car and jeep only. There is no endorsement on the driving licence that he was also authorized to drive transport vehicle. As per registration certificate of vehicle Ex.R6, it was utility vehicle and was being used for carrying goods. It is covered by the definition of transport vehicle  and that is why an endorsement was required on driving license as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Prabhu Lal 2008 (1) RCR (Civil ), 198 relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. It is specifically mentioned therein that for personal loss such like endorsement is required though the same may not be insisted for third party case.  In that case also driving licence was for Light Motor Vehicle only and not for goods vehicle. Same is the situation in the present case. Complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because in that case third party interest was involved and not the personal loss. Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the point of personal loss and third party interest in case New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Prabhu Lal’s case (supra).  It is specifically mentioned therein that opinion expressed in Kulwant Sinth and others Vs. OIC 2015 (2) SCC 186 is not applicable in such cases. In these circumstances, complainant cannot be held entitled for compensation claimed by him. Hence, impugned order dated 04.05.2015 is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

8.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

July 11th, 2016    Urvashi Agnihotri                             R.K.Bishnoi,                                              Member                                   Judicial Member                                         Addl. Bench                                      Addl.Bench         

S.K.