Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/191/2021

New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rohtash Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Sudhanshu Dwivedi

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND

DEHRADUN

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 191 / 2021

 

The New India Assurance Company Limited

having Regional Office at 430, 2^nd Floor

Niranjanpur, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun – 248001

through Manager (Legal)

…… Appellant / Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Sh. Rohtash Singh S/o Sh. Ajmer Singh

R/o Village Gadar Judda, Pargana Manglaur

Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar

…… Respondent / Complainant

 

Sh. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

Sh. Dharamveer Singh Arya, Learned Counsel for Respondent

 

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President

               Mr. Udai Singh Tolia,                         Member-II

                                   

Dated: 17/10/2022

ORDER

(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):

 

This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar (in short “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 03 of 2020; Sh. Rohtash Singh Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and another, by which the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant (opposite parties before the District Commission) was directed to pay an amount of   Rs. 1,51,875/- (the amount spent in repair of the insured vehicle) to the respondent – complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from 07.01.2020, the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.       Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that according to the consumer complaint, for the purpose of earning his livelihood, the respondent – complainant had purchased Tata 407 (Truck) vehicle bearing registration No. UP14-DT-1887.  The said vehicle was insured with the appellant – insurance company for the period from 29.09.2017 to 28.09.2018 at an IDV of Rs. 4,10,000/-.  During the validity of insurance policy, on 26.08.2018, the driver – Sh. Mukesh S/o Sh. Ajmer, R/o Village Gadar Judda, was driving the vehicle, when the same was hit by an unknown vehicle near Vaishali Dhaba, Chhapar, Muzaffarnagar.  The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged with the P.S. Chhapar and intimation was also given to the insurance company.  The complainant lodged claim with the insurance company and submitted all the required documents.  However, the insurance company through letter dated 04.04.2019, repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver Sh. Mukesh Kumar was not having a valid driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle, i.e., Tata Ace, on the date of accident.  The insurance company has repudiated the claim on false ground, thereby committing deficiency in service on their part.  The complainant had spent sum of Rs. 1,51,875/- towards repair of the insured vehicle.  With the above allegations, the consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission.

 

3.       The insurance company filed written statement before the District Commission, wherein it was pleaded that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, hence the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The claim of the complainant has rightly been repudiated by the insurance company and there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company.

 

4.       After giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, the consumer complaint has been decided by learned District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2021, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms.  Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – insurance company has preferred the instant appeal.

 

5.       We have heard rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 

 

6.       It is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant – insurance company for the period from 29.09.2017 to 28.09.2018 at an IDV of Rs. 4,10,000/-.  It is also admitted that the subject vehicle met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy.  The claim so preferred by the complainant with the insurance company, was turned down / repudiated by the insurance company per letter dated 04.04.2019 on the ground that the driver – Sh. Mukesh Kumar was not having a valid driving licence to drive the subject vehicle on the date of accident.

 

7.       The copy of the driving licence of the driver – Sh. Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ajmer Singh is on record, being Paper No. 42.  The same was valid for MCWG (NT) and LMV (NT) and the validity period was 27.04.2017 to 09.02.2032, which covers the date of accident, i.e., 26.08.2018.  The copy of registration certificate of the insured vehicle (Paper No. 43) shows that the vehicle in question is a “Light Goods Vehicle”.  Thus, from the copy of driving licence of the driver, it is clear that the driver was authorised to drive LMV (NT).  “LMV” which means “light motor vehicle”.  From the registration certificate of the vehicle in question issued by Transport Department, Uttar Pradesh, copy whereof is available on record, it is clear that the unladen weight of the vehicle is 2550 kgs. and the laden weight is 5300 kgs. 

 

8.       ‘Light Motor Vehicle” has been defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides that, “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 7,500 kilograms.  As is stated above, the unladen weight of the JCB vehicle in question is 2550 kgs. and the laden weight is 5300 kgs.  Hence, the unladen and laden weight of the subject vehicle are less than 7,500 kilograms.  Thus, the vehicle in question falls under the category of “light motor vehicle” and Sh. Mukesh Kumar, the driver was fully authorised to drive the vehicle. 

 

9.       Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 663, has held that “light motor vehicle” would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) r/w Sections 2(15) and 2(48).  A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg, would be a light motor vehicle.  It was further held that holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg.

 

10.     In view of the discussion made above, we are of the considered opinion that the driver of the subject vehicle was fully authorised and competent to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident and he was possessing a valid and effective driving licence.  The stand to the contrary taken by the insurance company, was not at all justified and the insurance company was at fault by repudiating the true and genuine claim of the complainant on a false and flimsy ground.

 

11.     No challenge was put on behalf of the insurance company to the quantum of compensation so awarded by learned District Commission per impugned judgment and order.

 

12.     For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cogent reasoning and the same does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Commission.  The appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.

 

13.     Appeal is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

14.     A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019.  The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

 

 

(U.S. TOLIA)                            (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)

               Member-II                                                President

 

K