JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant is the owner and R.C.Holder of Ashoka Leyland Lorry bearing Registered No. CNR-3609 and the same was insured with the Respondent vide policy No. 240200/31/05/01241 for a period of one year with effect from 26-08-05 to 25-08-06 covering all risks of the accident and other damages/losses. On 16-12-05 the insured vehicle of the complainant met with an accident near Kotamangala, Maharastra State. In the said accident the vehicle was completely damaged and that cleaner of the vehicle died on the spot. The police of Kotamangala Maharastra State have registered a crime against the complainants Lorry driver. Immediately the complainant informed to the Insurance Company regarding accident of the vehicle and damages too. The Respondents appointed a Surveyor and suggested to settle the matter by considering the total losses. In the negotiation with the Surveyor Mr. Bharath Dharmani Hubli and the Divisional Manager- Respondent has agreed to pay Rs. 80,000/- the complainant with an intention to early settlement has also consented for the said amount. According to the complainant has submitted all the required documents to the Respondent. But since from 28-02-06 the Respondent has not shown any interest to settle his claim, so the complainant lastly sent a legal notice on 09-06-06 which was served on 12-06-06 to the Respondent. Even then the Respondent has not shown any interest to settle the matter. Therefore there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent due to which the complainant is loosing earning of Rs. 1,000/- per day from his insured lorry. As such the Respondent is liable to pay compensation which comes in all Rs. 3,50,000/-. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for awarding the total compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest, penalty and cost. 2. The Respondent Insurance Company has filed written statement contending that the Respondent has not shown any interest or has not consented for any settlement of claim. As per the policy conditions, the person driving the vehicle shall hold effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The complainant has produced driving licence of his driver which was verified and found that the licence was not renewed on expiry on 09-08-05 as per law. As per section 15 of M.V. Act an application for renewal has to be made within a period of (30) days from the date of expiry. The complainants driver licence expired on 09-08-05 and the same was renewed on 19-12-05. The accident happened on 16-12-05. Hence the driver did not have any valid driving licence on the date of accident. So the repudiation made by the Respondent Insurance Company does not fall within the ambit of any deficiency of service under the C.P. Act. Hence there is no cause of action the Respondent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit as examination-in-chief and the Respondent Divisional Manager has also filed his sworn affidavit by-way of examination-in-chief both the parties have not chosen to cross-examine. On behalf of the complainant (5) documents have been got marked as Ex.P-1 to P-5. On behalf of Respondent (10) documents were got marked as Ex.R-1 to R-10. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:- 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the Respondents in not settling the claim of the accident damaged insured vehicle as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the negative. 2. As per final order for the following. POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that that the vehicle bearing Registration No. CNR 3609 Ashoka Ley Land Lorry is insured with the Respondents Insurance Company which met with an accident on 16-12-05 during the substance of the said insurance period. The Respondent Insurance Corporation has contended that since the driver of the vehicle was not having effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident as the DL was not renewed with-in the (30) days from the date of expiry on 09-08-05 though it was renewed on 19-12-05, so the driver did not have any valid driving licence on the date of accident on 16-12-05. Hence the Respondents have repudiated the claim on this ground. So it does not fall with ambit of any deficiency of service. 7. The learned counsel for the Respondents reiterating the same has further argued that the DL having been renewed on 19-12-05 after more than (4) months of its expiry on 09-08-05. Hence as per section 15 of the M.V. Act it cannot be said that the driver was possessing valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident occurred on 16-12-05. So the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated. In-support of her arguments the learned counsel has relied on the decision of Honble National Commission reported in II (2006) CPJ 309 and II (2006) CPJ 290 Himachala Pradesh State Commission. The Ruling of Honble National Commission Head Note(i) reads as under:- (i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986__ Section 2(1) (g) __ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988__ Sections 14 and 15 __ Insruance __ Driving licence__ Validity__ Renewal of licence__ Repudiation of claim on ground, driver not having valid and effective driving licence__ Accident on 14-05-1996__ Licence had expired on 12-04-1996 __ No application for renewal made within stipulated period__ Even if benefit of 30 days from date of expiry i.e, 12-04-1996 given, in case he applied for renewal, even then on date of accident i.e, 14-05-1996, driver did not have any valid licence__ Repudiation justified. 8. The Respondents Insurance Company has produced Xerox copy of the DL of driver Arunakumar at Ex.R-1. A perusal of it amply shows that the DL issued was to expire on 09-08-05 and it was renewed from 19-12-05. ( vide page No. 13 & 14 of DL at Ex.R-1 ). This fact is not disputed by complainant. Section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act and the first provision there to is material for our purpose which reads as under:- Renewal of driving licences.__ Any licencing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. 9. From a plain reading it makes clear that the renewal application must be filed within (30) days after the date of expiry of the DL so as to renew the DL with effect from the date of its expiry. If the renewal application is made more than (30) days after the date of expiry, the DL shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. The first provision to section 15(1) is in-accordance with provision to sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act which states that: every driving licence shall not-with-standing its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of (30) days from the date of expiry. So a renewal application shall have to be made within (30) days from the date of expiry of the DL so as to renew the DL on the immediate expiry of the DL or else the DL shall have to be renewed from the date of its renewal. 10. In the present case, admittedly the DL of the driver expired on 09-08-05 and it was renewed with effect from 19-12-05. So, naturally the driver of the vehicle was not possessing effective and valid driving licence on 16-12-05 the date of accident, as per decision of the Honble National Commission referred to above. Therefore the repudiation of the claim of the complainant cannot be said to be illegal and thereby there is no deficiency of service. In the circumstances we are not in-agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for complainant and rulings relied upon by him reported in 2004 ACJ Page -1 (SC) (Nation Insurance Company Ltd.,V/s Swarna Singhs & others) Produced only its Xerox copy of Head Notes and (2) 2004 ACJ Page 457 High Court of Kerala (Produced copy of entire Judgement.) 11. As seen above the second ruling of Himachala Pradesh State Commission relied on by the learned counsel for the Respondent, we find observations of Honble Supreme Court in Swarna Singhs case ( First ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the complainant herein) at Para-28 of the said judgement which interalia goes to show that the Honble Supreme Court in Para- 45 & 46 of Swarna Singhs case has clearly laid-down that:- The licence remains valid only for a period of (30) days from the date of its expiry. Proviso to section 15 of Motor vehicle Act clearly provides that if the licence is not renewed within (30) days of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. The driver cannot be deemed to be duly licenced on the date of accident if (30) days already expired from the date of expiry of licence and the same has not been renewed within (30) days. So the decision of Honble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant reported in 2004 ACJ Page-1 (by furnishing only Xerox copy of Head Notes of the said judgement) even will not come to his rescue, since the observation of Supreme Court in the said decision has been observed in Para-28 of the decision of Himachala Pradesh State Commission i.e, 2nd ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent. So viewed from any angle we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent as at the driver of the vehicle not holding effective and valid driving licence even by virtue provision to section 15 of M.V. Act. Hence Point No-1 is answered in the Negative. POINT NO.2:- 12. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-08-06) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. On leave. Smt.Kavita Patil Member.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
