Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 267.
Instituted on : 04.05.2017.
Decided on : 08.10.2018.
Balbir Singh s/o Sh. Zile Singh R/o VPO Guliayana District Kaithal, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 313, Model Town, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.S.Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant insured his vehicle bearing temporary no.HR-99MWTC-7463 with the opposite party and the alleged vehicle met with an accident while the same was being driven by Ashok Ravish son of the complainant. That at the time of accident, Ashok Ravish was having a licence of LMV, issued by LA, Kaithal. That complainant spent an amount of Rs.118749/- on repairing of his vehicle from Badhwar Automotives Pvt. Ltd. and also paid Rs.1500/- as crane charges. That complainant filed his claim with the opposite party and the investigator was appointed by the opposite party. That the opposite party has repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 31.03.2017 on the basis of report of surveyor and loss assessor. That the vehicle cannot be treated as a passenger vehicle until and unless same is registered as a passenger vehicle with the registering authority. That the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.118749/- as cost of repair of damaged vehicle alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party filed tits written reply submitting therein that the vehicle in question is insured as passenger car package policy and the R.C. of the vehicle is of tourist Motor cab/Taxi and at the time of accident Ashok Ravish was driving the car/Taxi and he has a D.L. of LMV(NT), thus he had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Thus the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. As such no claim was rightly passed in this case. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 12.03.2018 of this Forum. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the two main objections of the opposite parties are that: i) The vehicle was having no permit to carry passengers at the time of accident. ii) The driver of the vehicle was not authorized to drive omnibus/carrying passenger vehicle(Cab). Regarding first contention of the respondent, the respondent officials themselves insured the vehicle regarding commercial vehicle on the very first date of its purchase. Regarding the DL of the driver, we have placed reliance upon the judgment dated 03.07.2017 of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan versus oriental insurance company limited whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and 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. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium goods vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
- (iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.
6. Perusal of aforesaid law itself shows that the 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. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle. In the present case also, the driver was holding the licence of LMV so he was legally entitled to drive the vehicle. Hence the complainant is entitled for claim amount. As per policy document Ex.C1, the policy is Nil Dep. policy so the complainant is entitled for the amount of repair bills as shown in bill Ex.C3 and receipt Ex.C4 & Ex.C5.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.118750/- (Rupees one lac eighteen thousand seven hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 04.05.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.10.2018.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
