Haryana

Ambala

CC/29/2017

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Ahluwalia

23 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 29 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 23.01.2017.

                                                          Date of decision   : 23.05.2018.

 

Pritam Singh son of Sh.Babu Ram resident of village & Post Office Thakurpura Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1.National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its Senior Branch Manager.

2.Tata Motors Insurance Broking and advisory services Ltd. Office at Metro Motors, 106, Railway Road, Ambala Contonment, Ambala Cantt, through its authorized signatory.

...…. Opposite parties.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER 

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.Mohinder Bindal, counsel for OP No.1.                                                          Sh.Keshav Sharma, counsel for OP No.2. 

 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint with the averments that he is registered owner of vehicle TATA Indica bearing registration No.HR54-0351 duly insured with OP No.1 vide policy No.5527003115610003248 dated 09.04.2015 valid upto 22.04.2016. On 28.01.2016 the vehicle of the complainant got damaged and complainant informed the OPs but on the asking of concerned official the complainant got the same repaired from authorized service centre i.e. Om Motor Workshop, 108, Commercial Road, Ambala Cantt. on 28.01.2016 by spending a sum of Rs.16954/-  and asked that OD claim would be settled soon as requisite documents were submitted by him with OPs. On 29.07.2016 the Op/insurance Company wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the grounds that he has produced two driving licence of driver i.e. one issued by Licensing Authority, Barara and another by RTA, Ambala without affording any opportunity of being heard.  The driver Sahab Singh is having legal and valid driving licence as the Licensing Authority, Barara has jurisdiction/ power to issue license upto LTV vehicles, whereas RTA has jurisdiction/ power to issue license for heavy vehicle and the OP/ insurance company has failed  note that after getting issued LTV license from competent authority, the driver Sahab Singh had applied for HTV license before the RTA, Ambala which after completing the formalities and verifications had issued HTV license to driver Sahab Singh. The OP insurance company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant and it is clear cut deficiency in service on the OPs. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C9.

2.                On notice OPs appeared and filed their separate reply. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability and cause of action etc. It is the complainant who is responsible for the non- payment of the claim in question. After scrutinizing and elaborating the whole facts, position of the vehicle in question and the evidence the surveyor had submitted his detailed report dated 29.01.2016 wherein he has assessed the legal and payable loss to the tune of Rs.10087/- subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy and approval by competent authority.  At the time of claim the complainant had submitted driving license No.HR3720020023704 dated 01.01.2002 issued by licensing authority cum RTA Ambala alongwith and valid for TRV Rigid Chassi only and lastly renewed upto 29.06.2016. Since the said driving license was valid for TRV Rigid Chassi means transport vehicle which include only the medium class of vehicle and heavy transport vehicle so the said driving license was not found valid to drive any light motor car being having no such endorsement on the said DL. However, findings his DL not valid the complainant produced another driving license issued by Licensing Authority, Barara bearing No.DL/494/08-09 dated 15.07.2008 and valid for LMV tractor & car jeep and valid upto 17.04.2008. As per Section 6 of MV Act, a person can hold only one driving license and he cannot have a second driving license for any category of vehicle and if he wanted any addition to drive any other category of vehicle then such entry of additional clause of vehicle would be endorsed on the same DL and he cannot have another DL with separate class of vehicles. If a person having two driving licenses than the second DL has no value in the eyes of law and the same could not be even looked into and is considered as offence.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP/insurance Company and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   OP No.2 in its separate reply has submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and other allegations have been controverted. There is no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the Ops have the tendered affidavits Annexure RA, Annexure RB, Annexure RB/1 and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6.

3.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file very carefully.

4.                It is admitted fact that complainant has obtained the policy Annexure C1 for the period from 23.04.2015 to 22.04.2016 and during subsistence of that period vehicle which was insured got damaged and he informed to OP and they have deputed the surveyor for assessment of the loss and surveyor has prepared the report Annexure R6 and assessed the amount of Rs.10,087/- although the complainant is claiming the amount of Rs.16,954/- as per repaired bill which was charged by Om Motor Works. The insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver was holding two driving license Annexure C3 relates to LMV Motor Cycle, Tractor, Car Jeep etc. which was valid upto 17.04.2028 issued by RTA, Barara and complainant was also having the another driving license Annexure R3 issued by  RTA, Ambala which was valid upto 29.06.2016 for HTV/ TRV Rigid chassi only. Counsel for the OP argued on this point that there is no endorsement of the first driving license which was valid for LMV tractor if any authority issued any heavy HTV license, they are bound to endorse the  LMV license but no authority can issue another driving license without endorsing on the license hence, the driver was having two license which was not valid one. There is restriction on holding two driving license in Motor Vehicle Act. It has been further argued that in some cases Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that  petitioner owner has not point out any legal provisions under which driver could hold two difference license and some observation was given in the case titled as Bharat Kharbanda Vs. New India Insurance Company. We have gone through the both licenses and both are valid as first is for LMV, tractor, car jeep etc. which covers the claim arising out from the insured vehicle i.e. car Indica and another license is a HTV for heavy transport vehicle. In case titled as New India Assurance Company Vs. Jagdish  Appeal No.49/2004 decided on 25.05.2006 by HP State Commission  while relying upon full bench decision in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dharmu and others (supra) question referred to full bench in following terms: When a person is holding an effective driving license with a meaning of Section 2 (47) , 3 (1) and 10 (2) (e) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whether such a license still needs an endorsement authorizing him to drive a particular type of vehicle as has been held in the decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Suraj Parkash 2001 ACJ 85 (HP).  By referring to different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as for examination of the case law on the point it was held as under :

                             15. Viewed in the aforesaid perspective and the legal background, the answer to the question posed to us by the Division Bench, Viz. whether such a person who is already possessed of an effective driving license, authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle needs any additional endorsement authorizing him to drive a particular type of vehicle, will be that, insofar as all types of vehicles falling within the definition of transport vehicle are concerned, in the light of the aforesaid observations made by us, such a license does not need any other or additional endorsement nor such a person needs any further, other or additional  entitlement or, authorization to drive any vehicle which come within the definition and scope of the term transport vehicle as occurring in Section 2 (47) encompassing within itself all the attributes of such definition, including Sub Section (17) and 35 of Section 2 of Motor Vehicles Act.  The above said full Bench observation they have also reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Ashok Gandaghar Maratha Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, 1999, Supreme Court 3181.  In the present case counsel for the OPs have conceded at the time of arguments there is no dispute about validity of both license but only dispute about there is no endorsement on HTV license regarding LMV license. In case titled as Ved Kaur & Others Vs. Ramphal & others decided on 02.06.2016 by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana cited as 2016 (3) Law Herald (P&H) 2455  it has been mentioned that mere holding of two driving license is not a breach of terms and conditions of policy, unless and until insurance company has not proved both  license are fake and fabricated documents. The counsel for the OP has argued that Section 6 of the MV Act is applicable in this case as complainant is having two driving licenses. We have perused Section 6 of MV Act. Since the two licenses of two category i.e. HMV and LMV are different category of license under the MV Act issued by the different competent authority. The above two licenses are not same

category hence, the Section 6 of MV Act is not attracted in the present complaint. The case laws titled as Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Asha and others Vol.CLXXV-(2014-3) PLR page 458, (P&H High Court), Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. R.Lakshmanan and another  2002 ACJ 1304 (High Court of Madras), Salvador Rodrigues Margo Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited 2005 (1) CLT 204 (NC) and Jai Parkash Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC)   are not applicable to the present case, therefore, same are being distinguished.

                   Therefore, we are view the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was authorized to drive the vehicle as per the above said judgment of Full Bench i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Dharmu and others (supra) is fully applicable in the present case. Accordingly, present complaint deserves acceptance and surveyor has also assessed the amount of Rs.10087/-. It is a settled law that the surveyor is a best person and his report cannot be brushed aside brushed aside unless there is cogent and convincing evidence. In the instant case also, no credible evidence has been produced on the basis of which Surveyor’s report could be dis-believed. Hence, we allowed the present complaint with costs which is assessed at Rs.3,000/- to be paid by Op No.1 only. Complaint against Op No.2 is dismissed. The OP No.1 further directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs. 10,087/- (as assessed by the surveyor in his report Annexure R1) to the complainant alongwith with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization.

 

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 23.05.2018    

 

                                                                                                                    

          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)    (ANAMIKA GUPTA)    (D.N.ARORA)

                   Member                        Member                        President