Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 478.
Instituted on : 18.08.2017.
Decided on : 12.11.2018.
Mr. Alakh s/o Sunder Dass, resident of ward no.20, Near Nehra City Cable, Sunarian Chowk, Near Shiv Mandir, Amrit Colony, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, Jawahar Market, Opposite Model Town Rohtak.
……….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.Hawa Singh, 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 no.HR46D-5218 with the opposite party vide policy no.1112003116P114632535 from 26.12.2016 to 25.12.2017 with IDV of vehicle Rs.351000/-. That the alleged vehicle met with an accident and was completely damaged. That FIR was registered and copy of the same was duly submitted to the opposite party. That complainant submitted all the documents to the opposite party for getting the claim of vehicle. That opposite party deputed surveyor who submitted his report that the vehicle was completely damaged as total loss. But the opposite party had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 23.05.2017 on the ground that the driver Govinda is not entitled to drive the class of vehicle whereas driver Mr. Govinda was holding driving license to drive car LMV NT and was authorized to drive the car. 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.351000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
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 a tourist motor cab/Taxi and the driver Gobinda had a D.L. of M/cycle with gear/LMV(NT) only. According to the M.V.Act, he should have D.L. of transport vehicle. That a surveyor was appointed who assessed net loss of salvage basis i.e. IDV less wreck with R.C. less excess which is Rs.285000/-. That as the driver had no valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle in question. Thus the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. As such claim was rightly repudiated by the OP. 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 closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW1/B, 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 claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle(passenger carrying vehicle) at the time of accident. As per no claim report Ex.R2 dated 23.05.2017 itself shows that the driver was authorised to drive motor cycle with Gear, LMV-Non transport vehicle. In this regard, 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 license is required to drive a transport vehicle. Perusal of Ex.C2(Registration Certificate) itself shows that the gross weight of the vehicle is 1350kg. 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. Through this complaint, complainant has demanded Rs.351000/- alaongwith 18% p.a. interest from the date of accident i.e.01.02.2017 till its realization. On the other hand, respondent officials have placed on record survey report Ex.R5 conducted by Sh. Surinder Singh Malik. As per survey report complainant is entitled for Rs.285000/- on account of assessment of loss on net of salvage basis i.e. IDV less wreck value less excess clause i.e. Rs.285000/-.
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.285000/- (Rupees two lac eighty five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.08.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses 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:
12.11.2018.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
