BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.52 of 2015

Date of Instt. 18.02.2015

Date of Decision :27.05.2015

Sukhwinder aged about 45 years son of Mulakh Raj R/o VPO Chuheki, Tehsil Nurmahal, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. New India Assurance Company Limited, through its General Manager, Director Jalandhar Commercial Vehicle Package Policy No.36090031140100001283 from period 22.5.2014 to 21.5.2015, SCO 30-31, PUDA Complext, Jalandhar City.

2. New India Assurance Company Limited through its Officer Incharge, Building No.87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rakesh Trikha Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Mohindra Bolero Camper 200DREFBS3 Engine No.GHEID30985, Chasis No.MKIR 026MKE3033243 with one temporary registration No.PB-08-BX-TEMP-3194 from Makkar Motors Pvt Ltd, Village Kot Kalan, Paragpur Octroi Post, Jalandhar, Phagwara Highway, Jalandhar for Rs.5,58,373/-. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite parties vide policy No.36090031140100001283 issued on 22.5.2014 to 21.5.2015. Unfortunately the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 6.6.2014 at 7.00 AM, Jalandhar Phagwara Road near Bhangala alongwith the vehicle No.PB-02-AZ-9092 and the vehicle of the complainant suffered great loss and was beyond repair i.e total loss vehicle. Even the driver of the complainant died in the said accident. The complainant gave the information of the accident to the opposite parties, even the surveyor of opposite parties inspected the vehicle and put it under the category of total loss vehicle and also promised to get the full amount of the vehicle from the opposite parties. The opposite parties also got the signatures of the complainant over the blank papers and assured the complainant that he will receive the amount of this vehicle within few days. The complainant from the last 6 months was waiting for the claim of amount but his wait come to and end when the complainant received a letter from the New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office-1, in which the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of not holding the proper driving licence by the driver of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party insurance company to pay him the claim amount of Rs.5,58,373/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that immediately on the receipt of information qua the loss caused to the vehicle, M/s Arun Kumar & Company, Surveyors & Loss Assessors were appointed as surveyor to assess the loss to the vehicle alleged to have occurred in an accident on 6.6.2014. The said surveyor has submitted their report with the company, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.415454/- less excess clause of Rs.1000/- i.e Rs.414454/-. Since the driver at the time of alleged accident was not having valid and effective driving license and as such the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties as per the terms and conditions of policy of insurance. Letter dated 29.12.2014 to this effect was written to the complainant. That being so, the present complaint being without any cause of action, is liable to be dismissed with special costs. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OA to Ex.OC alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O7 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. It is not disputed that the insured vehicle of the complainant i.e Bolero Camper met with an accident on 6.6.2014 and was damaged. He lodged the claim with the opposite party insurance company who appointed surveyor, who submitted his report Ex.O6. The opposite party insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Ex.O2 is certificate of registration of the vehicle in question and class of the vehicle in it is mentioned as LGV i.e Light Goods Vehicle. Even in the report of surveyor Ex.O6, the class of the vehicle is mentioned as commercial. Shaker Chauhan was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Ex.O3 is copy of his driving licence and it was valid for MCWG(NT) i.e Motorcycle with Gear (Non Transport) and LMV(NT) only. Now the question which falls for determination is, whether the person holding the driving license for motorcycle and LMV(NT) can drive a goods vehicle or not? Counsel for the complainant contended that even if the driver was not having a valid driving licence, the opposite party insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim in toto and it should have granted the claim on non standard basis. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kump Singh, 2009(1)CPJ 274. We have carefully considered the above contention advanced by learned counsel for the complainant. No doubt the above cited authority support the contention of the complainant to some extent but in Oriental Insurance Company & Ors Vs Seema, 2014(2) CPR 297(NC), the Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-

"From the above discussion, it becomes abundantly clear that a person who is holding a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, does require the requisite endorsement from the licencing authority to enable to drive a transport vehicle, including a light commercial vehicle. In the absence of such endorsement, he can not be stated to be in possession of a valid and effective driving licence for driving a transport vehicle. In the present case, therefore, we do not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission and the District Forum that the holder of licence for LMV did not require any authorization from the licencing authority for driving a commercial vehicle in question. Obviously, there has been a violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant by employing a driver, who did not have proper authorization to drive that vehicle. We, therefore, agree with the contention raised by the petitioner that the orders passed by the Fora below are perverse in the eyes of law and suffer from a patent legal error. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed, the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are set aside and the consumer complaint in question is ordered to be dismissed".

7. The ratio of this authority is applicable on the facts of the present case. Driving a commercial or goods vehicle without valid driving licence constitute fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy and as such the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant in toto.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

27.5.2015 Member Member President