DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/306/2016
No. DF/ Central/
Arun Kumar Arya
R/o Arya Samaj Mandir,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59 …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Head Office, 3, Middleton Street,
Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani
Kolkata, West Bengal-700071
Also At: Regional Office,
2E/25, 3rd Floor,
Jhandewalan Extension Hub-2
New Delhi-110055 …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
1. Instant complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended alleging therein that in December, 2015, driver Mohsin approached the complainant to employ him as a driver for his car bearing no. DL 1YC 0976. Mr. Rakesh, manager of the complainant checked the Driving License of Mohsin and his driving skills and thereafter, complainant employed him as a driver. During his employment as a driver, Mr. Mohsin has been driving the vehicle efficiently and without any problem. Unfortunately, the vehicle met with an accident on 07.08.2016 at about 1:30 A.M. near Delhi Gate. Since the driver of the tractor had run away after hitting the car of the complainant, registration number of the tractor could not be noted and FIR could not be registered. However, information was given to the National Insurance Company (in short the OP) regarding the accident. Vehicle was inspected by an authorized surveyor of the OP. Claim was repudiated by OP vide their letter dated 19.03.2016 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle possessed fake driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the instant complaint seeking direction to OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization, litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP who appeared and filed reply.
In reply, it is mentioned that the claim was repudiated as the person driving the vehicle in question was not holding a valid Driving License at the time of accident. It is also pleaded that vehicle in question was not used exclusively for the livelihood of the owner and therefore in view of the judgment in Laxmi Engineering Works v/s PGS Industrial Institute Vol. II (1995) CPJ page-1, SC. In Material Industries v/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vol. II (1994) CPJ page-91, NC the complainant is not a consumer and as such his claim is not maintainable before this forum. Learned counsel for OP further submitted that as per the case of the complainant himself he did not personally check the driving license of Mohsin, the driver. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to para 5 of the complaint wherein it is stated that Mr. Rakesh, manager of the complainant had checked the driving license of the driver Mohsin and his driving skill.
3. We have heard Sh. Pushpender Kumar, counsel for complainant and Sh. Mandeep Singh, counsel for OP.
We have seen the repudiation letter dated 19.03.2016 placed on record at page 15 of the case file. It is stated in the said letter that the claim of the complainant was rejected on account of driving license of Mohsin, driver of the vehicle at the time of accident, having been found fake.
4. We may refer to a judgment of the Apex court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v/s National Insurance Company, Civil Appeal No. 8276 of 2009, D/-26-8-2013wherein it was observed by the Apex Court in the said judgment that in a claim for compensation it is open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. It was further observed that as far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid license. Thereafter, he has to satisfy himself about competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving license with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. In the present case, it is clearly stated in the complaint that the driving license of driver Mohsin was checked by Rakesh, the manager. Affidavit of Mr. Rakesh, alleged manager to the effect that he had checked the validity of the driving license of the Mohsin was not filed. Complainant himself did not check the validity of driving license of Mohsin.
5. Complainant had made a statement to this Forum on 14.11.2018 that he owned 8 taxis at the time of accident and that the said 8 taxis were plied by his drivers. He further submitted that he himself is working as a Pujari at Arya Samaj Mandir. It is therefore clear that the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purpose and not for the purpose of earning livelihood by way of self employment. The complainant is therefore not a consumer. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the same be retained on record. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this Day of 2018.
