DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.69 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  02.02.2017                                                  Date of decision   :  16.01.2019

Roshan Lal Thakur son of Shri Kahnu Ram Thakur, aged 37 years, resident of H.No.47, Khuda Jassu Chandigarh, presently at C/o Nand Lal, H.No.1023, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh.

…….Complainant

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No.40-41, Phase-5, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Branch Manager.

                                                                 ……..Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Deep Singh, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Rajesh Verma, counsel for the OP.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                  Complainant, owner of three wheeler bearing registration No.CH-01-TA-1240 got it insured from OP by paying premium for period from 28.07.2015 to 28.07.2016. That three wheeler met with an accident resulting in damage qua which report was lodged with police. Mr. Dil Bahadur driver of three wheeler was holding valid driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle at that time. Intimation was duly submitted with OP and thereafter vehicle got repaired from authorised dealer i.e. GMP Motors, Chandigarh by paying Rs.18,802/- to it. Claim was duly lodged for reimbursement of expenses borne for repairs, but that claim was repudiated vide letter dated 16.03.2016 on ground that Mr. Dil Bahadur was not having valid and effective driving license. It is claimed that person holding light motor vehicle driving license can drive the light motor transport vehicle even as per Section 2 (21) read with Section 41 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder and as such repudiation of claim alleged to be illegal. By pleading deficiency in service, this complaint filed for seeking direction to OP to pay Rs.18,802/- with interest @ 12% from the date of repudiation till actual payment. Compensation for deficiency in service of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply filed by OP, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint is not maintainable because Mr. Dil Bahadur, driver of the vehicle was not holding license to drive commercial vehicle. Admittedly, claim of damaged vehicle submitted by claiming as if accident of same took place on 15.01.2016 near PGIMER, Chandigarh. After verification, it was found that vehicle was driven by Mr. Dil Bahadur who was holding driving license to drive MCWG 3W NT, LMV. Categorization of vehicle has been defined under Section 10 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act and there is no separate category for transport vehicle mentioned therein. As driver of accidental vehicle in this case was not having valid and effective driving license and as such in view of breach of terms and conditions of policy, entitlement of complainant for claim is not there. So it is claimed that repudiation is justified.  Factum regarding insurance of registered vehicle in question with OP not denied. It is specifically admitted that claim was submitted with OP and thereafter verification of same  was got done by appointment of surveyor, who submitted report as if Mr. Dil Bahadur was not holding valid driving license to drive Light Motor Transport Vehicle. Issue of repudiation letter dated 16.03.2016 admitted and other facts of the complaint denied.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Assistant Manager of the OP alongwith document Ex.OP-1 and thereafter closed evidence. 

4.             Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Copy of registration certificate of vehicle in question produced on record as Ex.C-1 for establishing that complainant is registered owner of this vehicle. Copy of insurance cover note is produced on record as Ex.C-2, but as Ex.OP-1 by OP. So certainly vehicle in question was insured with OP for period from 29.07.2015 to midnight of 28.07.2016. Accident in question admittedly took place on 15.01.2016 and same fact incorporated even in letter Ex.C-4 sent by OP to complainant.  It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP that as Mr. Dil Bahadur, driver was holding driving license to drive light motor vehicle and not transport vehicle and as such repudiation of claim through letter Ex.C-4 is justified. That submission of counsel for OP though looks ex-facie as correct, but in fact same has no force in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. bearing Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 decided on 03.07.2017. In this reported case Hon’ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on Section 10 of Motor Vehicles Act held that a driver having license to drive light motor vehicle also is entitled to drive light transport vehicle of that class because there is no requirement of additional endorsement regarding entitlement of driver to drive transport vehicle.  After referring to Section 2 (21) of Motor Vehicles Act, it was further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that light motor vehicle will include a transport vehicle as per weight prescribed in Section 2 (21) read with Section 2 (15) and Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Change in this definition has not been effected even after 1994 and as such if a driver is holding license to drive light motor vehicle, then he can drive transport vehicle of that class without any endorsement to that effect. Section 2 (21) of Motor Vehicles Act provides that a transport vehicle whose weight does not exceed 7500 kgs. will be light motor vehicle. Perusal of RC Ex.C-1 reveals that laden/unladen weight of the vehicle in question is 735/405 kg. and as such certainly this vehicle falls in the category of light motor vehicles. Ratio of above cited case of Hon’ble Supreme Court fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such Mr. Dil Bahadur, the driver due to holding of driving license for driving light motor vehicle also was eligible for driving three wheeler in question as a transport vehicle without any endorsement of such entitlement on the driving license. So repudiation of claim absolutely is unjustified and against the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Being so, complainant entitled for reimbursement of incurred expenses of Rs.18,802/- borne by him for repair of damaged vehicle in question as evidenced by Ex.C-3.  This bill Ex.C-3 issued by GMP Motors, authorised dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd. and as such contents of the same cannot be ignored. Even if insurance company as per terms and conditions of the policy may have made certain deductions, but those terms and conditions have not been produced and as such for compensating complainant on account of delay in settlement of claim, ends of justice warrants that total amount of Rs.18,802/- mentioned in bill Ex.C-3 should be ordered to be reimbursed by OP to complainant. Payment of this amount must be made within specific period, failing which entitlement of complainant for interest @ 9% per annum from today till payment will be there. Complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and stood dragged in this litigation and as such he is entitled to amounts under these heads also.

6.             As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to OP to reimburse bill amount of Rs.18,802/- within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which OP will have to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above referred amount from today till payment.  Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OP.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

January 16, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member