West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/24/2017

Goutam Paria - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.                             

      

      Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

    Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.24/2017

 

Goutam Paria, S/o-late Anadi Charan Paria, R/O-Ghagra,

P.O.-Hijli Co-op., P.S.-Kharagpur(L),

District-Paschim Medinipur..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

                                                       The Divisional  Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,  

                     Divisional Office Library Road, P.O.-Midnapore & P.S.-Kotwali,

                                             Dist-Paschim Medinipur

                                                        The Chief Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                               Divisional Office No.9, 5^th floor, Rohit Chambers,

                Janmabhoomi Marg, Fort Mumbai-400001...……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

                For the Complainant  : Mr. Gangananarayan Paria, Advocate.

                For the O.P.                 : Mr. Sudip Chandra Chakraborty, Advocate.

 

Decided on:13/10/2017

                               

ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member : 

 

                     Complainant files  this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

  In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of vehicle (INDIGO ECSLS), being registration no.ODOIC1142, dated 29/10/2013, said vehicle was insured with the O.Ps. which was valid from 23/10/2014 to 22/10/2015.  The above said vehicle met with an accident on 14/12/2014 and was completely damaged.  Complainant lodged claim before O.P. no.1, surveyor inspected the vehicle and assessed

                                                                                                                                                         Contd……………P/2

 

                                                                                       ( 2 )

loss but O.P. no.1 repudiated the claim  on the ground that driver of the vehicle in question had no valid and effective driving licence.

Finding no way complainant approached before this Forum for getting relief as prayed for.

O.Ps. appeared by filing written version denying  the allegations, stating inter alia that this  claim is not maintainable, at the material point of  time the vehicle was driven by the driver who  had no professional driving licence as the vehicle was playing with passenger carrying  commercial vehicle which violates the policy condition.  The claim of the complainant is liable to be rejected.

                                              Points for decision :-

1. Whether the claim of the complainant is maintainable ?
2. Are the opposite parties negligent and deficient in service ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief ?    

                             Decision with reasons

All the points are taken together for the convenience and brevity and consideration. Facts of the case that the vehicle in question of the complainant was duly. Insured with O.P. no.1 and said vehicle was met with an accident for which the vehicle was completely damaged. After the accident the vehicle placed in a repairing centre at kharagpur, O.Ps. investigator inspected the vehicle and prepared estimated repairing cost and submitted report to the O.Ps. Complainant submitted claim form alongwith documents and bill of estimated cost of repairing of the said vehicle but O.Ps. repudiated the claim on the ground of driver clause in the policy.

 In support and to prove his case complainant adduced evidence and submitted documents which are marked exhibited.  O.Ps. also adduced evidence  and submitted documents which are also marked exhibit. Complainant admitted in his evidence that the vehicle in question was used commercial purpose and it is light motor vehicle and it also evident from the documents. It appears from the document that the vehicle in question is a hire vehicle by issuing a national permit. Certificate of policy of insurance was issued against such vehicle was a passenger carrying package policy where own damaged of the vehicle was also covered. It appears from the copy of F.I.R. and M.V.I. report that                             such vehicle has been badly damaged. O.Ps. witness produced extract copy of Driving licence where it appears that the driver was entitle to drive LMV (NPL) i.e. such driving licence, driver is entitled to drive non-professional Light Motor Vehicle. It appears from Ext-7/1 that O.P. no.1 repudiated the claim  on the ground that the driver of the vehicle in  question possessed LMV (NPL) licence but such vehicle used of passenger carrying commercial vehicle, as such the involved driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle in

                                                                                                                                                              Contd……………P/3

 

                                                                              ( 3 )

question as per Motor Vehicle Act. From the evidence of O.P.W.-1 it reveals that witness stated in his evidence that he has brought the extract of driving licence being no. 101885NPL/prof issued on 06/05/2003 and in cross-examination witness stated prof means professional but in the exhibit B & C it appears that coloum no. 10 it is mentioned that class of vehicle entitled to drive-LMV(NPL), there is  nothing mentioned the word prof. As per evidence act sec.92 any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or  statement shall  be admitted. So, as per Act mere oral statement of witness cannot change the law.

In view of the above discussions we find that on the date of accident  the vehicle in question was driven by the driver, had possessed LMV licence as per endorsement in the driving licence, Light Motor Vehicle as defined in sec.2 (21) of the act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in sec.2(21) read with sec.2(15) and 2(48).  Holder of a driving licence to drive class of Light Motor Vehicle as provided in sec.10(2) (d) is competent to drive a transport  vehicle or omnibus, the gross weight of which does not exceed 7,500 K.G. or a motor car or tractor or road roller the un-laden weight of which does not exceed 7,500 K.G. A licence issued under sec.10(2) (d) continues to be valid after amendment Act 54/1994 and 28/03/2001  in the form. As per registration certificate, of the vehicle being No.ODOIC1142, there is an endorsement in respect of un-laden weight-1065K.G. and registered laden weight-1510K.G., prescribed by the Registering Authority of ODISHA Motor vehicle department.  So such vehicle is within the class of Light Motor vehicle and as per amendment Act 54/1994 there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. In Civil Appeal No.4834 of 2013 in case S.IYYAPAN VS. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & another Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Light Motor vehicle continued at the relevant point of time to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle.

Another case in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 with other several special leave petitions, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that definition of light motor vehicle including the transport vehicles, driver holding licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive the transport vehicle of such class,  separate endorsement, not necessary.

In view of the discussions here in above we think the driver of the vehicle in question was possessing valid and effective driving licence and was entitled to drive transport vehicle also and in this aspect and as per legal proposition the repudiation of claim in respect of damaged vehicle by  the O.Ps. are illegal. We find the claim of the

                                                                                                                                                                   Contd……………P/4

 

 

( 4 )

complainant is maintainable, O.Ps. are negligent and deficient in service and for such act of O.Ps. complainant has been suffering mental pain, agony and financial loss as such he is entitled to get an order.

It appears from the document that damaged vehicle repairing cost was estimated by the authorized service centre, amounting to Rs.7,64,746.71/-. Complainant stated in his complaint that he has to pay Rs.500/- per day as garage rental charges to the repairing centre due to non-settled the claim under such circumstances this Forum find that the complainant is entitled get an order with compensation. 

                      Hence, it is,

                                                 Ordered,

                          that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. with cost. O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.4,62,409/- as IDV to the complainant within one month from the date of order. O.Ps. are further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- compensation for harassment, mental pain suffering and also monetary loss and pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within stipulated period mentioned above.

Failure to comply the order O.Ps. shall be liable to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as penal cost to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund to this Forum till full realization of this order.

                       Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

           Dictated and Corrected by me

                         Sd/- P.K. Singha                                                                      Sd/- S. Sarkar                       

                                Member                                                                                 Member