ORDER
(Passed this on 14th March, 2017)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President.
01. This complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is filed against TATA AIG Insurance Co. Ltd. for repudiating the insurance claim of insured vehicle.
02. The complainant is the owner of SKODA SUPERB car bearing No. MH-31-CS-7765 which was insured with the Opposite Party for IDV Rs. 16,01,935.30/- for the period 9/10/2011 to 8/10/2012. On 25/8/2012 the said car met with an accident whereby it sustained extensive damage. The matter was immediately reported to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party registered the claim and asked him to get it repaired at authorized service station. Accordingly he took the car to the service station where estimate of Rs. 4,74,905.54 /- was given. The surveyor permitted dismantling and repairs. The complainant paid advance amount Rs.2 lakh for repairs on assurance of the Opposite Party and also submitted his driving license. After repairs, the Opposite Party was asked to pay the expenses. On assurance of payment by the Opposite Party the complainant paid balance amount to service station and took delivery of the car. But the Opposite Party failed to settle his claim despite several reminders, which amounts to deficiency in its service and unfair trade practice. Hence, he has claimed repair expenses Rs. 3,84,890/- with 12% interest along with compensation and cost.
03. The Opposite Party filed reply and admitted the ownership of the complainant over the car and its insurance policy. Denying the accident of the car, it is stated that the incident was reported late by 2 days. The estimate is said to be manipulated and no permission of repairs was given by the surveyor. It is also denied that it asked him to pay advance amount on giving assurance of payment. When on its demand he provided his driving licence, it was noticed that it was not renewed after 25/6/2012 for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). Thereafter he produced another original driving license bearing same number but different validity period. Thus he produced two driving licences with same number but different expiry dates. The licence which was given with the claim form has expiry date 25/6/2012, whereas another licence, which was submitted on demand by the Opposite Party, has expiry date 25/12/2012. Thus the subsequent licence is a forged and fabricated licence to get insurance claim. As the matter was under investigation, it took some time. It is clear that when the accident occurred, the complainant had no valid driving licence. He is thus guilty of cheating and fraud in trying to get insurance claim. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party therefore no claim is payable. It is thus submitted to dismiss the complaint.
04. Heard Ld. counsels for both the parties. Perused documents, rejoinder and notes of argument. We record our findings and reason as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
05. The only point in dispute is whether the complainant had valid driving licence at the time of accident. First it is to be noted that the complainant was driving LMV, which met with an accident on 25/8/2012. According to the Opposite Party, the claim was not settled because at the time of accident the complainant had no valid driving licence. It is alleged by the Opposite Party that the licence had already expired on 25/6/2012. The complainant has denied this allegation and asserted that he had a valid licence. There cannot be any dispute that in absence of valid driving licence no insurance claim is payable if the insured vehicle meets with an accident.
06. The Opposite Party has filed the copy of driving licence, which according to it, was provided by the complainant to the surveyor. On perusal of the licence it can be noted that for LMV-TR it was issued on 5/12/1987 and was valid till 25/6/2012. The copy was verified from original. If this licence is given weight it means at the time of accident it was already expired. The complainant has also filed copy of licence and its extract. As per this license and extract, it was issued for LMV-TR on same date i.e. 5/12/1987 and was valid till 25/12/2012. Thus this licence was in force when the accident occurred. Now there cannot be two driving licences with different expiry dates of same person. Interestingly both the licences bear same number, RTO seal and signature and all other particulars are also same, except expiry date in respect of LMV-TR.
07. Ld. counsel for the complainant has relied on some judgments, which may first be noted . In Kulwant Singh v/s Oriental Insurance Co. Civil Appeal No. 9927-28 /2014 (SC) decided on 28/10/2014 the question was whether licence for driving light motor vehicle entitled the driver to drive light goods vehicle. Referring to an earlier judgment it was held that the light motor vehicle covered both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle. In S. Ayyapan v/s M/s United India Insurance Civil Appeal No. 4834/ 2013 (SC) decided on 1/7/2013 the case was of third party injury claim and the question was, can an Insurance Company disown its liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle although duly licensed to drive light motor vehicle but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light
motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle. In that case the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. The vehicle by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Referring to the Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicle Act on ¨Insurance of Motor Vehicle against Third Party Risk¨. it was held merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is light motor vehicle, the insurance company cannot refuse to pay compensation to dependants of the victim. In National Insurance Co. v/s Rajesh Ohri Revision Petition No. 2002//2007 (NC) decided on 25/7/2011 the question was slightly different. It was alleged by the insurance company that at the time of accident the driver of the insured vehicle was holding a fake driving licence. Refuting this allegation, the complainant claimed that the driver had a valid driving licence and it was subsequently renewed from the Licensing Authority. It was held that the onus is very heavy on the insurance company to show that the driver had no valid driving licence. While upholding the contention of the Insurance company that in cases of own damage claims, a fake driving licence which is ab initio fake, even on its genuine and bonafide renewal by the competent authority cannot make it a valid and effective licence and therefore once the original licence is fake, renewal cannot take away its effect, it was held the insurance company on whom the onus was placed to do so was able to produce credible evidence to conclusively prove that the original licence was fake. No affidavit or letter from the District Transport Office was produced to support its contention. Consequently, the revision of the insurance company was dismissed.
08. Now, in the light of above citations if the facts of the present case as to driving licence are closely examined, it is to be noted that at the time of accident the complainant was driving a Skoda car, which is light motor vehicle. It was not a transport vehicle. As held in Kulwant Singh case, a light motor vehicle covers both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver, who has a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, can drive a drive a light goods vehicle as well. From the extract of driving licence produced by the complainant it can be seen that his date of birth is 4/1/1964 and he was given licence to drive LMV Transport Goods on 5/12/1987. On the date of issue he was 23 years old. As per Section 14 of the M.V. Act a driving licence issued or renewed shall, if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof, be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal, or until the date on which such person attains the age of fifty years, whichever is earlier.
09. Considering the date of birth of the complainant, he attained the age of fifty years in the year-2014. That means till 2014 his driving licence must have been renewed for the period of twenty years. So at the time of accident in August 2012 his driving licence could not have been expired. The extract of driving licence also shows the driving licence was valid till December 2012. Only the copy of the licence produced by the Opposite Party shows the license was valid till June 2012. But that could not be possible. The Opposite Party besides the copy of licence has not produced any other material in support of its contention, nor filed affidavit of issuing authority to show the licence was expired in June 2012 and the one produced by the complainant is fake or fabricated. Therefore considering these facts and the judgments cited above we are of the opinion that the complainant had valid driving licence at the time of accident to drive the insured vehicle.
10. The complainant has stated he incurred repair expenses Rs.3,84,890/-, which he has paid to Garage owner. He has produced Retail Invoice in support of payment. The Opposite Party has not disputed expenses paid by the complainant. On the contrary, it is stated that its surveyor has assessed loss of Rs. 3,60,939/-, only Rs.23,951/- less than actual expenses. Ld counsel for the complainant relying on the judgment in Oriental Insurance Company v/s Mohinder Pal and othr, Revision Petition No. 1925/2013 (NC) decided on 26/8/2014 submitted the Opposite Party should not have deducted any amount while assessing the loss. In that case the vehicle was less than three months old when it met with an accident, and so deduction was not allowed. In present case the vehicle was almost a year old when it met with an accident. As per the policy, compulsory excess Rs.1000/- and some depreciation will have to allowed in our case. Accordingly, assessment done by the surveyor in our opinion is proper and can be accepted.
11. For aforesaid reasons we allow the complaint and pass the following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is partly allowed.
- The Opposite Party TATA AIG General Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,939/- (In words Rupees Three lakh Sixty Thousand & Nine Hundred Thirty Nine only) towards reimbursement of repair expenses to the complainant with 9% p.a. interest from the date of the complaint.
- The Opposite Party is further directed to pay compensation Rs. 7000/- (In words Rupees Seven Thousand only) for harassment and litigation cost Rs.3000/- (In words Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant.
- The order shall be complied within 30 days from receipt of the order.
- Copy of the order shall be given to both the
parties, free of cost.
