PRESENT:      Sh.Jatin Sahrewat, Adv. for complainant

Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OPs.

                              ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Sh.Ajit Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed  to :-

i) To release the insurance claim amount of Rs.26,457/-.

ii) To pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.        In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he being the owner of Tata-207 bearing registration No.PB-65-E-4058 got insured with OPs for the period from 29.09.06 to 28.09.2007 on payment of Rs.9,683/- as premium vide insurance policy(Annexure C-2). On 21.04.2007, the vehicle in question was coming from Yamuna Nagar to Mohali. In the way, it met with an accident and suffered extensive damage. It was brought to M/s Pasco Automobiles, Chandigarh in a truck. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1920/- as fare and Rs.500/- for unloading the vehicle in question.  Thereafter, the intimation was given to OPs and the claim was also submitted in May, 2007. OPs appointed a surveyor who visited the premises of M/s Pasco Automobiles, Chandigarh and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.9798/-. However, the report has not been made available to him. According to the complainant, he incurred Rs.26,457/-  on the repairs of the vehicle in question. It has further been pleaded that later on the complainant received a letter dated 30.07.2007 whereby his claim was repudiated on the ground that the Sh.Harpal Singh, driver of the vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle at the time of accident.

          The case of the complainant is that Sh.Harpal Singh who was driving the vehicle in question on the fateful day was having a valid and effective D.L. to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). According to the complainant, Tata-207 is also a Light Motor Vehicle, so Sh.Harpal Singh was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Therefore, according to the complainant, the claim has been wrongly and illegally repudiated by OPs.

          In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.        In the reply filed by OPs, it has been admitted that the vehicle in question was insured for the period from 29.09.06 to 28.09.2007 for IDV of Rs.4,03,750/-.  The case of OPs is that Tata-207 is a transport vehicle and in view of section 3 read with Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver of Tata-207 should have a licence authorizing the driver to drive a transport vehicle.  Admittedly, Sh.Harpal Singh was having a licence which was not having the endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. So, the vehicle in question was not being driven by a person having a valid licence. According to OPs, the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated keeping in view the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

5.        Annexure C-1 is the registration certificate of the vehicle. The vehicle  has been classified as LMV. Its unladen weight is 1690 kgs. It is a Tata-207/31. Annexure C-8 is the driving licence of Sh.Harpal Singh who was allegedly driving the vehicle in question on the fateful day. As per the driving licence placed on record, Sh.Harpal Singh has been authorized to drive motorcycle, LMV (P) only. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:-

“3. Necessity for driving licence—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than 7[a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.”

6.        The terms Goods Carriage, Light Motor Vehicle and Transport Vehicle have been defined in sub clauses 14, 21 and 47 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act respectively which reads as under:-

 “Goods Carriage” means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods;

“Light Motor Vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 2[7,500] kilograms;

“Transport Vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;”

7.        Admittedly, the vehicle in question is a goods carriage as it is constructed and adopted for carrying goods. Admittedly, the vehicle had gone to Yamuna Nagar loaded with goods and it was returning after unloading it. Otherwise also, from the construction of the body of the vehicle in question, it is apparent that the vehicle has been constructed solely for carriage of goods. Being a goods carrier, the vehicle in question is a transport vehicle under Section 2 (47)of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8.        Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act read as under:-

“10. Form And Contents Of Licences To Drive—(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely-

9.        From the bare perusal of the section 10, it is clear that where a person is authorized to drive a transport vehicle, an endorsement has to be made specifically for that purpose. No doubt, the unladen weight of the vehicle in question is that of a LMV but as the vehicle in question is a transport vehicle, the licence should have a specific endorsement authorizing the holder to drive the transport vehicle.

          Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act also requires that a person driving the transport vehicle should have a licence specifically entitling him to drive the same.

          Admittedly, in the present case, Sh.Harpal Singh, the driver of the vehicle in question was not having the driving licence entitling him to drive a transport vehicle. Ratio of case titled as A.R.Geetha Vs. Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. reported in S.C. & National Commission Consumers Law Cases (1996-2005) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as in the case cited above, the licence issued was prior to amendment of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act as is evident from para No.3 of the judgement which reads as under:-

“3. Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 deals with as to what is the form and contents of licences to driver. We refer to section 10 of the act before its amendment in 1994, Section 10 at that time reads as under:-

“10. Form And Contents Of Licences To Drive—(1) Every learner’s licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) A learner’s licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-

10.       Similarly, the ratio of case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Iqbal Singh reported in III(2007 CPJ-341  is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the rules which are basis of this judgement stand repealed by virtue of Section 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the said Act came into force in July, 1989.

11.       Thus, the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

12.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20.01.2010