Date of filing:  15.12.2021                                                          Date of Disposal: 25.04.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.468/2021

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Mr. Pramod Diwakara,

S/o. Mr. S. Diwakara,

Aged About 42 years,

No.4072, 5^th Cross, 19^th A Main,

HAL 2^nd Stage, Indiranagar,

(Rep by Sri. Anand Muttalli, Advocate)

M/s.Tata AIG General Insurance

Company Limited, Branch Office

At 2^nd Floor JP and Jambukeshwar

Arcade, No.69, Millers Road,

Represented by its Directors.

(Rep. by Sri.Prashant.T.Pandit, Advocate)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,03,833/- and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.    It is not in dispute that, the complainant is the owner of Hyundai Elite I-20 Asta 1.4 CRDI car, bearing registration No. KA-03-MX-4374 and got it registered in his name on 23.01.2016 and it is a diesel car.  Further it is not in dispute that, opposite party had issued the insurance - Private Car package Policy for the period from 25.01.2019 to 24.01.2020.  Further it is not in dispute that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 10.12.2019 and the complainant had claimed a sum of Rs.1,03,833/- towards the repair charges of the vehicle.  Further it is not in dispute that, opposite party had repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that, the driver of the vehicle was not holding effective driving license at the time of accident. 

03.    It is the further case of the complainant that, he was possessing effective driving license valid from 15.11.1999 to 27.01.2030.  Further in-spite of repeated demand been made the opposite party did not resolve the dispute.  Further the complainant got issued a demand notice dated: 13.03.2021.  Hence opposite party has unjustly enriched itself with the premium paid by the complainant for availing insurance policy.  Hence the present complaint came to be filed.

04.    It is the further case of the opposite party that, while scrutinizing the claim documents submitted by the complainant it was found that, the driving license of the complainant was expired on 14.11.2019 and the date of accident was on 10.12.2019 and the driving license was renewed on 28.01.2020.  Hence the complainant is not entitle for reimbursement of repair charges.  Further the complainant has supressed the date of expiry of the driving license.  Further on the date of renewal the Regional Transport Officer had made an endorsement that, the renewal was with effect from the date of renewal.  Hence sought to dismiss the complaint.

05.    To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.9 documents.  The Senior Manager of opposite party (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R.1 and EX.R.6 documents.

06.    Counsels for both the parties have filed their respective written arguments and had filed citations.

07.    The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

  (2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

      relief sought ?

      (3) What order ?

08.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

Point No.1 :  In negative

Point No.2 :  In negative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

09.    POINT NO.1:-  The complainant (PW.1) and opposite party (RW.1) have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. 

10.    It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, he has spent Rs.1,03,833/- towards the repair of his car.  To substantiate that, the complainant has produced EX.P.9 the receipt for having paid amount to Trident Automobiles Private Limited.  It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, on the date of accident the complainant was holding effective driving license.  On perusal of Ex.P.5 Xerox copy of DL relates to the complainant, it appears that, the renewal was made on 28.01.2020.  The complainant did not produce any document to indicate the date on which day the license was expired.  On the other hand, opposite party has produced EX.R.4 extract of driving license of the complainant.  On perusal of the same, it appears that, the license for MCWG was issued on 15.11.1999 and license for LMV was issued on 18.02.2008.  The same was valid till 14.11.2019.  Further in the document relied by the complainant vide EX.P.7 issued by RTO dated: 11.02.2020 it is stated that, the license of the complainant was effectively renewed from the expiry and it is valid till 27.01.2030.  Further in the document produced by the opposite party vide EX.R.3 in the letter said to have been issued by the RTO dated: 15.03.2020 it is stated that, the driving license of the complainant was effective from the date of its renewal as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 section 15(1).  Since the opposite party has produced the letter dated: 05.03.2020 that the renewal was effective from the date of its renewal along with the extract of driving license vide EX.R.4 and the document produced by the complainant vide EX.P.5 speaks that, the effective date was from 28.01.2020, the letter produced by the complainant vide EX.P.7 that renewal from the date of expiry cannot be taken in to consideration and it has no much weight in the presence of the other documents stated above.  Hence on the date of accident the driving license of the complainant was not in force. 

11.    It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, since the license was renewed it has the effect from the date of expiry of the license.  Further it is not the case of the opposite party that, the complainant was disqualified to possess the driving license.  In support of the contention counsel relies the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in 1999 ACJ 450 decided on 27.02.1998.  In which, the case arose before the Hon’ble High Court on the judgment and award passed by MACT.  The facts in the said case is that, the driving license of the transportation authority was up to 07.10.1989 and the accident took place on 03.01.1990 and the license was renewed up to July-1992 and an endorsement to that effect was made in the license. 

12.    In the circumstances it is observed that, “there is an endorsement of renewal of the license also as appearing in the license, but even assuming that, there is no renewal endorsement, it cannot be said that, the person driving the vehicle was not a licensed driver.  It is not a case where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving license rather admittedly the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured was having a valid driving license duly granted by transport authority.  Merely because of expiry of the period of license and omission of the driver to get the license renewed it cannot be said at any stretch of imagination that, there is breach of condition of policy for which insurance company can be exonerated from the liability.  As stated above, the driver was authorised to drive the transport vehicles and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to the licensed driver and therefore, in my considered opinion, this plea of the insurance company to absolve itself from the liability cannot be sustained in law” and allowed the claim of the applicant. 

13.    Contrary to that, the learned counsel for opposite party in support of his contention has relied the judgment reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5065 in between Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited.  In the said judgment since the accident vehicle was used after expiry of temporary registration, it is held that, the insurance company was not liable for compensation and nothing is discussed about non-possessing of valid driving license.

14.    Further the counsel also relied the judgment reported in II (2019) CPJ 74 (NC) rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, decided on 25.10.2018 in between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. M.S. Bhati.  In the said judgment by referring Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that, “if the application for renewal was moved within 30 days from the date of expiry, the renewal shall be effective from the date of expiry and if the application was moved after 30 days of the date of expiry of the license, the renewal shall be from the date of renewal”.  Hence in the said case Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that, the driver was not holding any valid driving license at the time of accident and it was a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The judgment relied by the counsel for complainant is delivered on 27.02.1998 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court it has only persuasive in character and does not bind to this Commission.  Further the judgment relied by counsel for opposite party is rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court which was decided on 04.09.2014 and by the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on 25.10.2018, it has binding effect to this Commission and the same was delivered subsequent to the judgment relied by the counsel for the complainant.

15.    In the case on hand, it is not the case of the complainant that, he had moved the application within 30 days from the date of expiry and renewed only after 30 days.  As stated above in view of EX.R.3 and EX.R.4 we feel the effective date of renewal of the driving license of the complainant was from 28.01.2020 and the license was expired on 14.11.2019 and renewed driving license was issued effective from 28.01.2020 to 27.01.2030.  Hence when the accident took place on 10.12.2019 the driving license to drive the vehicle by the complainant was not in force in compliance of section 15(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  Hence deficiency of service cannot be attributed on the opposite party.  Accordingly, we answer this point in negative.

16.    POINT NO.2:-     Since point No.1 is answered in negative, this point is answered in negative.

17.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 25^th Day of April, 2023)                                             

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

Sri. Pramod Diwakara, the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Certificate U/s. 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act-EX.P.1
2. Copy of RC extract – EX.P.2
3. Copy of insurance premium receipt dt.25.01.2019 – EX.P.3.
4. Copy of certificate of insurance – EX.P.4
5. Copy of driving license – Ex.P.5.
6. Computer downloaded whatsapp chats – EX.P.6
7. Copy of certificate dt.11.02.2020 given by RTO – EX.P.7.
8. Computer downloaded email – EX.P.8
9. Copy of Bank receipt dt.07.02.2020 – EX.P.9.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Sri. Vinay Kumar, Senior Manager of opposite party (RW-2) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

1. Letter of authorization – EX.R.1.
2. Copy of policy terms & conditions – EX.R.2.
3. Copy of claim form – EX.R.3.
4. Copy of driving license extract – EX.R.4.
5. Copy of repudiation letter – EX.R.5.
6. Copy of letter dt.27.02.2020 addressed to RTO, - EX.R.6.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•