BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.74/2017.

Date of instt.21.03.2017. 

                                                                        Date of Decision:24.10.2017.

M/s Chandigarh Chemicals, Jamalpur Road Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad through its Partner Mohit Garg.

                                                                             ..Complainant.

                                       Versus

1.United India Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, Udyog Nagar Metro Station, Near Peeragari, New Delhi West Delhi-110041 through its Branch Manager.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, Udyog Nagar Metro Station, Near Peeragari, New Delhi West Delhi-110041.

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Micro Office Mirch Mandi Road, Near Maharaja Aggersain Public School, Tohana, District Fatehabad through its Manager.

..Opposite parties.      

      Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.    

Before             Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                        Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

     Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present :         Sh.Sanjay Verma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh.N.D.Mittal, Advocate for the OPs.

   ORDER

                    The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant with the averments that the complainant is registered owner of a car make Toyota Innova bearing registration number HR-62-5711. The complainant purchased a insurance policy from OP No.1 in respect of the above said car on 25.10.2014. The above said policy bearing No.0402013114P105683241 was valid up to 24.10.2015. It is further submitted that the above said vehicle met with an accident in March 2015 and the complainant informed OP No.1 regarding the accident telephonically. The vehicle in question was repaired as per terms of the OP No.1 and a total amount of Rs.90,000/- as expenditure was paid by the complainant in getting the above said car repaired. However the OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 29.07.2015 on the ground that on the date of accident the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid and effective driving licence and permit of the above said vehicle had also expired on the date of accident. It is further submitted by the complainant that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Vehicle was also having a valid permit on the date of accident. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 so many times to receive the insurance compensation but, all in vain. The act on the part of OP No.1 in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant on illegal grounds amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and on account of the same the complainant has suffered huge financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice the OPs appeared and resisted the complainant by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections have been raised i.e. that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; That the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum; That the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; That as per disclaimer  Clause of insurance policy the complaint is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; That the complaint is time barred.

3.                On merits it has been submitted by the OPs that on receiving intimation regarding the accident the OPs deputed Sh.Ashutosh Kalra, Surveyor and loss assessor, Hisar to inspect the vehicle and assess the loss. The said surveyor  submitted his survey report to the OPs on 01.05.2015 and assessed the total costs of parts and repairs as Rs.33,235/- and after making deductions has assessed  the net payable amount to the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. Thereafter for settling the claim the requisite documents were sought from the complainant. On perusal of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question it was found that the vehicle in question was registered as taxi and a perusal of driving licence of Sh.Mohit Garg who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident it revealed that driving licence was valid for light motor vehicle only whereas the vehicle insured was a commercial vehicle because it was registered as taxi and was also carrying a route permit to ply as taxi. It is further submitted that for driving such a vehicle the driver of the vehicle must be having a driving licence for driving light motor vehicle (transport). It was also submitted that on the date of accident the route permit issued to the vehicle had already expired. Therefore the complainant was not found entitled for payment of insurance claim and the same was repudiated on 29.07.2015. It is further submitted that the decision dated 29.07.2015 is perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore the present complaint is without any merits and the same deserves dismissal.

4.                In evidence Sh.Mohit Garg, Partner of M/s Chandigarh Chemicals, produced his affidavit wherein averments made in the complaint have been  affirmed. The complainant also tendered in evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C17 in support of its case and closed the evidence. On the other hand Sh.R.K.Jain, Attorny of the United India Insurance Company filed an affidavit Annexure RW1 on behalf of OPs wherein the submission made in the written statement has been affirmed. The OPs also tendered in evidence documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R8 in support of their case and closed the evidence.

5.                The counsel for the complainant in his arguments reiterated the submissions made in the complaint and further contended that a genuine claim of the complainant  has been repudiated by the OPs on baseless and illegal grounds. The learned counsel further contended that a perusal of Annexure R-5 i.e. Authorization for National Permit clearly reveals that on the date of accident i.e. March 2015 the vehicle in question was having a permit. The same is evident from column 6 of R-5 wherein date of expiry of permit has been mentioned as 26.12.2017. Therefore the repudiation of the claim inter-alia on the ground that the vehicle in question was not having a permit is factually wrong and it amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The learned counsel further contended that the driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective licence to drive the said vehicle. It is further contended that the insured vehicle was a Toyota Innova and as pre R-3 i.e. the report of surveyor and loss assessor the registered laden weight of the vehicle was 2300 kg. That as per definition provided in Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 a vehicle having a laden weight of 2300 kg. falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle. As per Section 2(21) of the above said Act Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed of 500 kg. Therefore the vehicle in question falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle. A perusal of Annex C-4 i.e. photocopy of Driving Licence further  reveals that the Sh. Mohit Garg was having a licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle and the same was valid from 23.06.2011 to 11.12.2016. Therefore the repudiation of the claim inter-alia on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned counsel in support of his arguments has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case titled as Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Lt. Vs. Sia Ram decided on 22.11.2016 (FAO No.6753 of 2016).

6.                On the other hand the learned counsel for the OPs rebutted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and vehementally  contended that the repudiation of the insurance claim of the complainant by the OPs is perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the vehicle in question i.e. Toyota Innova having Registration No.HR-62/5711 was being used as a taxi and was registered as a taxi. The required road tax was paid and it was having a Route Permit to ply as taxi issued by the R.T.A. Fatehabad. But at the time of accident the driver of the said vehicle was having a licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle only whereas the vehicle which he was driving was a commercial vehicle and for driving such a vehicle the driver must have a valid licence to drive LMV (transport). In support of his contention the counsel relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. JIVABHAI MALDEBHAI GODHANIYA -(revision petition No.1407 of 2014) decided on 09.05.2017.

7.                The learned counsel further contended that as per Annexure R-5 Column 9 the permit of the vehicle was from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 and as such on the date of accident i.e. March 2015 the vehicle was not having a permit and as such repudiation of the claim inter-alia on the ground that the vehicle was not having a permit at the time of accident is perfectly legal. In support of his contention the learned counsel  relied upon the decision rendered by National Commission in case titled Ghanshyam Sahu Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Revision Petition No.1933 of 2016) decided on 03.05.2017.

8.                The counsel further contended that the complaint is not maintainable as per the disclaimer clause of Insurance Policy. The insurance had disclaimed their liability by their letter dated 29.07.2015 but the complaint has been filed in March, 2017. Whereas it should have been filed within 12 calendar months from the date of disclaimer and as such the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and by Hon’ble National Commission in a number of decisions.

9.                We have duly considered the rival contentions of counsel of both the parties and have also perused the material/documents placed on the record of the case file. It is not disputed that insurance policy of the vehicle in question was issued by the OPs. It is also not disputed that the vehicle in question met with an accident during the subsistence of the said policy. The insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence to drive the said vehicle and permit authorization had expired on the date of loss. Regarding the valid driving licence it is the case of the complainant that on the relevant date the driver of the vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. It is the contention of complainant that since the vehicle involved in the present case falls within the definition of  Light Motor Vehicle, as provided under Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 as such the driving licnece of the driver was valid on the date of occurrence. So the main issue for decision before this Forum is as to whether on the date of accident the vehicle in question was used as a commercial vehicle and the driver of the said vehicle was having a valid and effective licence.

10.              From perusal of Annexure R4 it is evident that the vehicle in question was registered as a taxi. From perusal of the record it is also established that the vehicle was having route permit to ply as a taxi issued by R.T.A./D.T.A., Fatehabad and as such the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle. It is not in dispute that the driver of the vehicle in question was having a licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle only. The controversy involved in the present case has been discussed in a number of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and the Hon’ble National Commission from time to time. Issue of grant of driving licence for a private and commercial vehicle, was dealt with by the National Commission in revision petition No.579 of 2013 titled as the Oriental Insurance Company and others Vs. Seema decided on 06.05.2014. The Hon’ble National Commission after making a detailed analysis of the Statutory Provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules concluded that the requirements of age, qualifications, medical examination, period of licence etc.  in obtaining of licence  for driving a transport vehicle were distinctly different from those in getting a licence for non-transport vehicle. It was further observed by the National Commission that under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Light Motor Vehicle means a transport vehicle as well but this did not mean that the holder of licence for driving a Light Motor Vehicle was authorized to drive a light commercial  vehicle or a transport vehicle as well. It was also observed that a person holding a licence of Light Motor Vehicle only or the licence in a private was debarred from driving a transport vehicle, unless he has proper authority or endorsement to this effect from a competent licencing authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled that Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol & Ors.,  observed that the distinction between a light motor vehicle and a transport vehicle is therefore evident. A transport vehicle may be light motor vehicle  but for the purpose for driving for the same a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a transport vehicle and a passenger vehicle can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Sub-Section (2) of the Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a transport vehicle whereas in case of any other licence, It may remain effective for a period of 20 years. The Hon’ble Apex Court clearly stated that a transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle as well but for the purpose of driving the same a distinct licence is required to be obtained.

11.              In view of the legal position as discussed above we are of the considered opinion that the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle on the date of accident and the driver of the said vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence.

12.              It is also pertinent to mention her that in the present case the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OPs on 29.07.2015 as is evident from Annexure R2. However the present complaint was filed by the complainant in March 2017 i.e. after a lapse of about one year  and nine months. Therefore keeping in view the disclaimer clause in the insurance policy and decision dated 10.09.2014 rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in case M/s Gobal Ispat Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company in appeal No.13 of 2013. We are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable.

13.              Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs in rendering service to him and accordingly the present complaint is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 24.10.2017.

(Raghbir Singh)

     President

             (Ansuya Bishnoi)  (R.S.Panghal)   District Consumer Disputes                      

       Member                 Member       Redressal Forum,Fatehabad