Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/100/2014

Jaladhar Sahoo S/O-Tirthabasi Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Co .Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 100 OF 2014

Jaladhar Sahoo ( 35 Yrs.),

S/O: Tirthabasi Sahoo,

R/O: Gayatri Vihar Purnabasti, PO: Kalimandir Road,

Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………………..…………………..…… Complainant.

     

                                           Versus 

 

The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Jharsuguda Branch, At: Kalimandir Road,

PO: K.M. Road, PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha….............................................. Opp. Party.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                 Shri N.K.Mishra, Adv. & Associates..

For the Opp. Parties                                 Smt. B.Mundra, Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of Order: 28.10.2015

Present

1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Smt. A. Nanda, Member(W).

                                                                                            

Shri S.L. Behera, President:-  In brief, fact of the case is that, the complainant is registered owner of one Tata Indigo-CES  bearing Regd. No.OD-23-3507. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P Insurance company (National Insurance Company Ltd.) under a policy No.163401/31/13/6300005278 valid from 12.12.2013 to 11.12.2014.   During the continuance of the said insurance policy on dtd. 06.06.2014 the aforesaid vehicle of the complainant meet with an accident causing sever damage. The matter of accident was reported to Police station as well as to the O.P Insurance company.  A surveyor was duly appointed by the O.P insurance company visited the accident spot who estimated the damage to a tune of Rs.1,82,598/- .  Thereafter insurance claim was preferred before the O.P. Insurance company but despite several approaches made by the complainant his claim was not settled, hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OI.P and for payment of Rs. 1,82,598/- towards cost of the damage, Rs.3,00,000/- towards repairing cost and Rs.15,000/- for compensation.

2.         The O.P. Insurance company contested the case who claimed that due to violation of the policy condition they have repudiate the claim of the complainant. According to the O.P Insurance company at the material time of accident one Jaladhar Sahoo was driving the insured vehicle who was having valid driving license but the same was not effective.  The O.P. Insurance company denied to have rendered any deficient service in respect to the complainant due to the above stated reason.

3.         Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits evidence along with copies of relevant documents in support of their claim

            It is not disputed that complainant was having insurance policy in respect to his vehicle and the said vehicle was met with an accident causing damage to it.  The complainant claim to have filed estimate cost of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,82,598/- to be incurred in repairing the vehicle.  But it is admitted by the complainant that due to wants of money he could not get the vehicle repaired from his own pocket and depend on the insurance money. 

4.         We have gone through the copy of Driving license particulars of the driver namely Jalandhar Sahoo who was driving the insured vehicle at the time of accident ie. dt. 06.06.2014.  The said driving license was issued infavour of the driver on dtd. 06.05.2010 which was valid upto dtd. 28.06.2028.  The said driving license authorized driver concerned to drive transport vehicle but as per the claim of the O.P. Insurance company on whose basis repudiation was made is that no endorsement was made in the said driving license to drive CARCC at the time of accident.  On verification of the driving license we do not found any endorsement specified in the said driving license which authorized the driver to drive CARCC but the vehicle was admittedly registered as passenger carrying vehicle.     (1)- Whether the Driving license of the driver of the complainant was valid and effective at the time of accident ? (2)- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed? If so, to what extend ?

            So far as issue No.1 is concerned, the O.P has categorically mentioned that during verification of DL in question it was found that the driver was not authorized to drive a passenger carrying motor vehicle.  The insured vehicle being a passenger carrying transport vehicle, the driver was not competent to drive it with that DL.  On the other hand the complainant claims that the said DL was valid and effective at the time of accident.  In order to resolved this dispute, we gone through the particulars of DL vide No. OR-1520100092816 issued by RTO, Sambalpur issued on dt. 04.05.2010 in favour of Jaladhar Sahoo and Certificate of Registration of vehicle in question.  There is a clear endorsement permitting the driver to drive light motor vehicle transports goods from dtd. 04.05.2010 and valid upto 28.06.2028. It is not in dispute that Jaladhar Sahoo has license to drive Light Motor Vehicle having endorsement authorizing him to drive transport vehicle.  The stand of O.P is that there should be endorsement authorizing the driver to drive a passenger carrying motor vehicle.  In the absence of such endorsement, the license in question is not effective.

            Now it is required to discuss/analyze whether such endorsement is required as per law, or endorsement, authorizing to drive transport vehicle is sufficient to drive vehicle in question.  For this purpose it is essential to evaluate the definition of light motor vehicle defined U/S-10(d) of the Act, transport vehicle defined U/S-10(e) and Sec-2(47) of M.V Act, 1988.

Section 10(d) Light Motor Vehicle:

            A person holding such a license can drive any vehicle (other than two wheeler) of below stated description:

1.  Transport vehicle or Omnibus with gross vehicle weight up to 7,500 KG.
2. Motor car, Tractor, Road Roller with unladen weight up to 7,500 KG.

 

Now all the vehicles with the above specification will come under the purview of LMV.

Transport Vehicle Sec-10 (e):

            The transport  vehicle has replace the following category of vehicle vided amendment 1994 in Motor Vehicle Act,1988.

1. Medium goods Vehicle.
2. Medium passenger Motor Vehicle.
3. Heavy Goods Vehicle.
4. Heavy passenger Motor Vehicle.

Further the word Transport Motor Vehicle has been defined in sec-2(47 of M.V Act,1988 as – Transport Vehicle means Public Service Vehicle, Goods Carriage, an Educational Institutional bus or a Private Service Vehicle, therefore it covers following four category of vehicle-

1. Public Service Vehicle.
2. Goods Carriage.
3. Educational institutional Bus.
4. Private Service Vehicle.

Thus, the holder of Transport Vehicle license is allowed to drive any medium/ heavy vehicle coming under Public Service Vehicle, Goods Carriage, Educational Institutional bus and Private service Vehicle.  Further it is essential to mention here that Transport Vehicle License can not be give unless one has held LMV License for the least of year.  In view of this legal position it is needless to mention that the holder of Transport Vehicle license can drive any LMV Vehicle as well may be goods or passenger carrying.  As the public service vehicle is already included in the definition of transport vehicle there is no necessity of further endorsement of passenger varying vehicle endorsement on the license to drive transport vehicle when it is use to drive passenger carrying vehicle. The complainant has also filed two numbers of citation of  Hon’ble High Court of Odisha Royal Kumar Naik Vrs. Maa Narayan RTS Dadakangia reported in 2011(1) OLR-467 and another decision of Apex Court between National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors reported in 2008(1) TAC-812(SC).

      In this context, one can be easily draw instant interference that a person having Driving License Motor Vehicle with endorsement for transport Vehicle is competent or authorize to drive passenger Carrying Transport Vehicle.  In the present case the Driving License of Jaladhar Sahoo has valid and effective even though there is no endorsement  to drive passenger Carrying Transport Vehicle, accordingly we do not find any forces in the submissions of O.P.

      The O.P Insurance company should have settled the claim on non-standard basis.  Instead of settling the claim on non-standard basis as the settled law , it delay the matter unnecessarily forcing the complainant to approach this forum for his redressal.  The O.P Insurance company did not produce any investigation report or Surveyor Report before this forum.  In absence of any material to hold that if any amount was assess by the Surveyor, we have not any alternative to accept the estimate produced by the complainant which was required for the repairing of the vehicle.  The complainant in his affidavit evidence categorically stated that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- for repairing of the vehicle by taking loan from the market but no payment voucher

….4…

 

 

-4-

including paid bills are submitted , we therefore calculate the amount to be settled to the extent at 75% of Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. Rs.2,25,000/- , this sum is entitled by the complainant.  The O.P. Insurance company should pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant against his claim.

      The vehicle got damage in an accident on dtd. 06.06.2014, the O.P Insurance company repudiate the claim vide their letter dtd. 06.11.2014. when we already hold the repudiation to be not justified, the claim should have been settled on non-standard basis then the complainant is entitled to get interest after 03 months from the date of accident i.e. 07.09.2014 till date of realization.

      In view of above discussion and observation, the complaint petition is allowed, hence the order as follows:-

ORDER

 We direct the O.P. Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.  2,25,000/- ( Rupees two lakh twenty five thousand) only along with interest @ 09% per annum from dtd. 07.09.2014 to till date of realization including a sum of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand) only towards mental agony and harassment including litigation costs, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 28^th   day of October’2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.

              I Agree.        

                                                                                                          

1. Nanda, (W)                                                                  S.L. Behera, President                    

 Dictated and corrected by me.

 

                                                     S.L. Behera, President.