O R D E R :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )
Complainant Shri Rakesh Kumar on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite party be directed to pay insurance claim of Rupees 45,000/- along with compensation of Rupees 10,000/- on the grounds that he is the registered owner of the vehicle No. HP-01-H-2850 which was duly insured with the opposite party and unfortunately met with an accident on 23-05-2011. The complainant lodged the claim of Rupees 45,000/- with the opposite party, but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant wrongly and illegally on the ground that the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question which amounts to deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered monetary loss and harassment.
2. The opposite party disputed the said claim and has set up the defence that it has rightly and legally repudiated the claim of the complainant because the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, hence it has committed no deficiency in service.
3. Both the parties have led evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the complaint.
5. Admittedly, the complainant is the registered owner of LMV-T No. HP-01H-2850 having Contract Carriage Permit which was insured with the opposite party w.e.f. 04-09-2010 to 03-09-2011. The said vehicle met with an accident on 23-05-20-11. At the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by Shri Jaspal son of Shri Bali Ram ( paid driver). The complainant lodged the claim with the opposite party. The opposite party appointed Surveyor and Loss Assessor Er. Sushil Thakur. Er. Sushil Thakur conducted survey and submitted Motor Survey Report (final) dated 23-06-2011 Annexure R-2. Vide said report he assessed the net loss at Rupees 16,845/- against the claimed loss of Rupees 46,000/-, but the opposite party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29-07-2011 Annexure R-1 on the ground that the vehicle was being driven at the time of the accident by Shri Jaspal son of Shri Bali Ram who was having valid driving licence LMV (NTPT) and HMV, whereas, the above stated vehicle is LMV (TPT) as per registration certificate.
6. Undoubtedly, as per Registration Certificate the vehicle is LMV (TPT). There is no dispute that at the time of the accident Jaspal son of Bali Ram was the holder of driving licence Annexure R-3 which has been produced in evidence by the opposite party. Vide said driving licence Annexure R-3, Shri Jaspal was licenced to drive throughout India vehicle of the description LMV and HMV only, which was originally issued on 12-09-2005 and subsequently renewed w.e.f. 10-05-2010 to 09-05-2013. Undoubtedly, there is no endorsement on licence Annexure R-3 authorising Jaspal Singh to drive the vehicle of the category LMV (transport). The said licence was issued and renewed by District Transport Officer –cum-Licencing Authority, Patiala. The complainant in order to falsify the defence of opposite party has produced in evidence the report of licening Authority, Patiala in respect of licence in question Annexure C-6. Licencing Authority, Patiala vide report Annexure C-6 has certified that Jaspal was authorised to drive the vehicles of the category LMV, HMV (heavy goods and passenger vehicles only) and it was renewed from 10-05-2010 upto 09-05-2013.
7. In the said background, the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that licence Annexure R-3 does not authorise Shri Jaspal to drive a transport vehicle and that after the amendment, carried in the format of licence vide GSR-221(E) dated 28th March, 2001 endorsement for driving a transport vehicle is necessary, if the holder has to drive a transport vehicle.
8. Vide aforesaid notification, the format of licence was modified by making certain changes in form No.6, appended to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The changed format provided for issuance of licence in respect of following category of vehicles :
i) motorcycle without gear;
ii) motorcycle with gear;
iii) unloaded carriage;
iv) loaded motor vehicle.
v) transport vehicle;
vi) Medium passenger motor vehicle;
vii) or a motor vehicle of specified description
the format also speaks of endorsement which reads like this :-
i) licence to drive a motor vehicle otherthan a transport vehicle is valid from –to-
ii) licence to drive a transport vehicle is valid from –to –
9 ) licence in the name of Jaspal, though issued in the year 2005 and renewed from 10-05-2010, is not on the new format given in form No.6. The same is on form No.-7 pertaining to laminated smart card like licence. Of course, form No.7 also requires endorsement for non transport and transport vehicle, to be made, but in the case of licence in question, endorsement for transport/NT vehicle are not printed on the form which indicates that licence issued on old format that is to say the format which was in vogue prior to the issuance of aforesaid notification of March 2001.
9. Further from the duration for which the licence was valid , it can be spelt out by the reference to the Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, whether it authorised the holder to drive a transport vehicle or a NT vehicle. Section 14(2)(a) shows that a driving licence for transportation of the vehicle shall be effective for the period of three years. Section 14(2)(b) shows that a driving licence for other vehicles shall be valid for a period of 20 years in case the person is below of 50 years of age and does not attain the age of 50 years within that period of 20 years or until he attains the age of 50 years and where the person is attained the age of 50 years, the period of effectiveness of the licence shall be 5 years and thereafter renewal would be required. The holder of licence in this case was born on 11-12-1976. That means he could have been issued a licence upto 09-05-2013, if the licence for the purpose of driving a vehicle otherthan a transport vehicle.
10. In the present case the period of effectiveness of the licence or on renewal was 3 years and it was to expire on 09-05-2013. Therefore, the presumption is that the licence was issued to enable the holder to drive a transport vehicle , in accordance with the Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
11. Since, the holder was authorised to drive heavy motor vehicle, it can be said to include both goods carrying and passenger carrying vehicle, he was authorised to drive the vehicle in question.
12. In view of the findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that Jaspal was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident and as such the opposite party has wrongly, illegally and without due application of mind has repudiated the claim of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. By taking this view this Forum is fortified by the law laid down in case Mithun Chauhan Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 667 (H.P.S.C.D.R.C.).
13. Secondly, the complainant has claimed that the opposite party be directed to indemnify him to the extent of Rupees 45,000/-, but in support of the said claim the complainant has failed to adduce any legally admissible evidence. To the contrary, the opposite party has relied upon Final Survey Report of automobile Er. Sushil Thakur dated 23-06-2011 Annexure R-2. Vide said report the loss assessor has considered the claim of the complainant and after due consideration has assessed the net loss at Rupees 16,845/- only. The complainant has failed to prove that in the said report an assessment has been made by the loss assessor wrongly, hence no alternative is left with this Form to differ with the report of the loss assessor and as such we conclude that the opposite party was liable to indemnify the complainant in sum of Rupees 16,845/-, but failed to indemnify him illegally which amounts to deficiency in service.
14. In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant has suffered monetary loss, harassment and mental tension.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rupees 16,845/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 06-12-2011 till the said amount is paid or realised. The opposite party is further directed to pay punitive compensation of Rupees 5,000/- and cost of the complaint which we assess at Rupees 5,000/-. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT
ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015
(B.R. Chandel )
President
(Th.Digvijay Singh) ( Sushma Sharma)
Member Member
