Before  the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor                                         ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                               Complaint Case No. 372/18.10.2016

Shri Dalbir Singh s/o Sh. Hari Singh

r/o C-91 Y, DDA Flats, Jahangirpuri,

North West Delhi, Delhi-110042                                                ...Complainant

                                      Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Limited

7B, Ground Floor, Rajendra Park,  Pusa Road

New Delhi-110060 (through its Director/ MD)                        ...Opposite Party 

                                                                   Order Reserved on:     06.01.2023

                                                                   Date of Order:             06.02.2023

Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

              Shri Vyas Muni Rai,   Member

              Ms. Shahina, Member-Female

Inder Jeet Singh

                                             ORDER

1. The complainant Dalbir Singh, being owner of truck bearing registration no. HR 55G 2725, got insured  his truck from opposite party/SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. During the validity of insurance policy, complainant’s vehicle, being driven by Kuldeep Singh Malli, met with an accident on 12.07.2015, the vehicle was damaged, it was got repaired against payment of bills of Rs. 2,38,500/- However, his claim was denied by the OP.

          Whereas, the OP justifies denial of the claim, since there was violation of driver’s clause of insurance policy and at the material time of loss, the driver was not having valid driving licence for the class of vehicle insured; the claimant never furnished driving licence with the endorsement to drive Insured vehicle with the hazardous goods. This is the consumer disputes in the present complaint to be determined.

2.1. Briefly, the complainant obtained insurance policy bearing no. 1391596-01 in respect of vehicle/truck no. HR 55G 2725 for period 26.11.2014 to 25.11.2015 and that vehicle had met with an accident on 12.07.2015, for which FIR no. 178/13.07.2015 was registered at P.S. Paniyala, District Jaipur Rural. Surveyors were appointed by the OP, who furnished their reports. The complainant informed the incident to the OP being claim no. 188690. These facts are not disputed by the OP in its reply.

2.2. The other facts of complaint, but disputed by the OP, are that there were damages of Rs. 2,38,500/- and OP failed to recognized them and to reimburse them, there is deficiency of services, apart from its negligence which caused harassment, mental agony and other trauma to the complainant. The complainant had also furnished to OP, Training Certificate of driver of the vehicle and also completed other formalities, however, the claim was not settled. Even legal notice was also served, it was not replied nor the amount was reimbursed.

2.3. The complaint is accompanying copy of insurance policy, claim form, invoices/estimate of expenditure incurred, copy of FIR, training certificate in respect of safe transportation of hazardous goods and copy of legal notice dated 04.08.2016 with postal receipt. The status of these documents have also not been disputed by OP in its reply.

           That is why the complaint for refund of Rs. 2,38,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a., compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 5,500/-.

3.1. The OP opposed the allegations of complaint [except the facts admitted and already mentioned].  Firstly, there was no deficiency of services, secondly, there was no cause of action against the OP, thirdly, the parties are to observe the terms and conditions of policy strictly but complainant failed in it. The surveyor has determined that insured vehicle was carrying hazardous goods at the time of accident, it was being driven by a driver without having a valid driving licence,  he was not authorized to drive Insured vehicle loaded with hazardous goods, there is clear violation of provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,  policy terms and conditions, more specifically it’s a clause reads as “any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license”. It was reason that repudiation letter was issued, as at the time of loss, the person who was driving the vehicle was not having a valid license for the class of the vehicle insured. The complainant had also not furnished driving license with endorsement to drive the insured vehicle with hazardous goods. The complaint is without merit.

3.2.  OP's reply is supplemented with the copy of insurance policy with terms and conditions, Motor Survey Report dated 14.9.2015 by surveyor and repudiation letter.

4. The complainant opted and filed replication to the reply, the complainant denies all the allegations in the reply and reaffirm that there was valid driving license with the driver, there was no violation of policy terms and conditions or violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.

5. At the stage of evidence, the complainant filed his affidavit of evidence, the documents supplemented with the complaint have also been relied in the evidence. Similarly, the OP also filed evidence through Ms. Madhuri Uttam Patil, an employee of OP, the reliance is also placed on record filed with reply, apart from the surveyor Motor Survey Report dated 14.9.2015, and another surveyors' report of 14.08.2015, who was initially appointed to inquire and survey.

6. Both the sides filed their respective written arguments followed by oral submissions. After evidence, the complainant had filed one sheet copy of extract of driving license obtained on 25.10.2019,  to show that Kuldeep Singh Malli was holding driving license to drive the vehicle. To counter it, the OP has relied upon the record as well as the case law, which will be referred at appropriate stage of discussion.

7.1. (Findings): The contentions of both the sides are considered and it is crystal clear that narrow controversy rest upon 'whether or not the driver of vehicle was holding a valid license to drive the Truck/Transport vehicle loaded  with hazardous goods'.  Thus the terms & condition of insurance policy, relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the rules there-under are to be seen.

          By comparing the submissions of both sides, to drive truck with hazardous goods,  a driver should have Driving License-Transport with an endorsement to drive hazardous goods.  It is to be seen 'whether complainant has proved that Kuldeep Singh Malli was holding such valid driving license at the time of accident and loss'.

7.2. It is not a disputed either in the replication or otherwise or the surveyor’s report, apart from other record that goods being transported were hazardous in nature, which was also mentioned in the detail of load challan that the said vehicle was loaded with 13850 kg. of Aceton as per consignment notice no. 243 dated 08.07.2015. The surveyor’s report dated 14.08.2015 as well as other report 14.09.2015 also mentions that truck was loaded with chemical drugs; meaning thereby at time of incident and loss, the insured truck was loaded with this type of goods.

7.3. The complainant refers and relies upon Training Certificate issued to driver Kuldeep Singh Malli that he had undergone the training programme of 'Safe Transportation of Hazardous Goods from 11.09.2014 to 13.09.2014, valid upto 12.09.2015' apart from relying upon copy of 'driving license details', that the license was issued upto 16.11.2026. The complainant contends, these record establishes that the Kuldeep Singh Malli was holding a valid driving license, he was permitted to  drive Transport vehicle with such goods and he drove it. There is no violation of conditions of policy.

          On the other side, the OP opposes this plea of complainant, taking reasons from the ratio of case 'New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Ashpal Singh and Others [MAC.APP. 798/2010, dod 16.01.2016 paragraph 4 and 6], wherein the provisions of section 14(2) of Motor Vehicle Act and rules there-under were reproduced and it was also held that in case transport vehicle carrying goods, which are dangerous and hazardous in nature, the driving license ordinarily issued is not sufficient in that, such driving license requires a further endorsement as to the compliance by the driver with the requirements of the other conditions, such licenses being effective only for a period of one year and subject to renewal for similar period from time to time thereafter. Section 14 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act read as:

Para 4 : Currency of licenses to drive motor vehicles-

(1)...xxx

(2) A driving license issued or renewed under this Act shall,-

(a) in the case of a license to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: Provided that in the case of license to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and

(b) in the case of any other license,-

(i) if the person obtaining the license, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years from the date of such issue or renewal thereof;-

(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or

(B) until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier;

(ii) if the person referred to in sub-clause (i), has attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, for a period of five years from the date of such issue or renewal;

Provided that every driving license shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry.

Paragraph -6.

 Rule 9 and 132 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989

Rule .9- Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods—

xxx

(3) The licensing authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule(2), shall make an endorsement in the driving license of the applicant to the effect that he is authorized to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life.

xxx

Rule 13-. Responsibility of the transporter or owner of goods carriage.—

xxx

 (5) It shall be the duty of the owner to ensure that the driver of the goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods holds a driving license as per provisions of rule 9 of these rules.”

          The OP further relies upon the National Insurance Company vs. Md. Azeemuddin, FA no. 929/2011 [dod 09.10.2012 by Hon’ble State Commission], wherein it was held that in the absence of a valid and effective driving license, plea of damages does not sustain.

7.4. It needs to re-look at the record. When survey was done after incident of 12.07.2015 and survey report dated 14.08.2015 was prepared, no driving license of Kuldeep Singh Malli was produced, however, at the time of motor vehicle survey report dated 14.09.2015, driving license of Kuldeep Singh Malli/driver was produced & it was verified by surveyor, it was valid for Motorcycle-LMV-Trans upto 24.07.2015. The details of driving license history & transaction, later on furnished by the complainant, also shows the validity of driving license as Non-transport from 17.11.2006 to 16.11.2026, Transport from 15.03.2016 to 13.03.2019. Other details in the driving license transaction history, also shows validity for Non-transport as well as Transport; the transport validity was up to 24.07.2015, however, validity or history of carrying hazardous good  is left blank (i.e. 'nil') and  no entry/endorsement is shown  for hazardous goods coupled with Transport vehicle License. Therefore, the said Kuldeep Singh Malli was not having a valid transport driving license, with an endorsement to carry hazardous or dangerous goods, to drive the that class of vehicle in terms of section 14(2) of Motor Vehicle Act. The ratio of law laid down in New India Assurance Company vs. Ashpal Singh (Supra) applies to the situation of this case. The "Training Certificate" is not substitute of that driving licence. The training of that syllabus a mandatory requirement, in addition to valid licence. Thus 'training certificate' being relied upon would not help the complainant,  when driving license of transport with an endorsement to carry hazardous or dangers goods was not obtained by the driver. The ratio of law laid down in the National Insurance Company vs. Md. Azeemuddin (supra) is also applicable to the present situation.

7.5. In view of the above, the complaint failed to establish that Kuldeep Singh Malli was holding such valid driving license at the time of accident and loss' or deficiency in services of OP1. On the other-side OP has succeeded to prove that there was violation of condition of insurance policy by the complainant, consequently no deficiency in services by OP1. By considering them, the complaint fails, it is dismissed. No orders to costs.

8. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules.

9:  Announced on this 06th day of  February, 2023 [माघ 16, साका 1944].