important points
Tata 709 was rightly held by District Forum to be ‘transport vehicle’.
In view of the driver driving a transport vehicle but holding only a LMV license without an endorsement to drive transport vehicle, Insurance Company was not liable for paying any compensation.

Headnote:(a)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 2(14) and 2(47) – The vehicle in question, a Tata 709, was registered as a truck, a goods carrier and was described as public carrier – Load carrying capacity was shown to be 4100.00 Kgs. – It was a ‘transport vehicle’ falling under clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act – The District Forum rightly considered the question of liability of the Insurance Company on the basis that Tata 709 was ‘transport vehicle’.(Para 24)
       (b)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 3 r/w Rule 16, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Form No.6 – In view of the driver holding only a LMV license without an endorsement to drive transport vehicle, Insurance Company was not liable for paying any compensation.(Para 33)
       (2006) 4 SCC 250 – Relied upon.
       AIR 2000 HP 91 – Noticed with approval.
       (1999) 6 SCC 620; (1987) 2 SCC 654; (1996) 4 SCC 647; (2003) 6 SCC 420; (2004) 3 SCC 297 – Distinguished.
       (c)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 14 – The driver’s licence been renewed for a period of twenty years – Therefore the licence was in respect of ‘a motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle’ and he was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle – Insurance Company not liable to pay compensation.(Para 34)
       Facts of the case:
       1.A complaint was filed by the complainant Prabhu Lal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota (Rajasthan) claiming compensation from the respondent Insurance Company as also from Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur.
       2.On April 17, 1998, the vehicle of the complainant was being driven by Mohd. Julfikar to Indore. At about 4.30 a.m. in the early morning, the vehicle met with an accident with Roadways Bus. Due to said accident, Ram Narain ‘brother of the complainant’ who was sitting with Mohd. Julfikar, sustained injuries.
       3.The District Forum held that the complainant was not entitled to compensation.
       4.According to the State Commission, the District Forum was not right in dismissing the claim. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
       5.National Commission also dismissed the Revision and confirmed the order passed by the State Commission.
       Findings of the Court:
       The vehicle was a transport vehicle and in view of the driver holding only a LMV licence without any endorsement, Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

judgment

C.K. Thakker, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.In all these appeals, a common question of law has been raised by the parties. It is, therefore, appropriate if we deal with and decide all the appeals by a common judgment. In all the three appeals, the claim of the claimant has been upheld finally by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘National Commission’ for short) which has been challenged by the Insurance Company in this Court.

3.To appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate if we narrate the facts in the first case i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal.

4.A complaint was filed by the complainant Prabhu Lal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota (Rajasthan) (‘District Forum’ for short) claiming compensation from the respondent Insurance Company as also from Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur. The case of the complainant was that he purchased a vehicleTata 709 with Registration No. RJ-20G-2828 from Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur. The insurance was taken from New India Assurance Company effective from October 17, 1997 to October 16, 1998. Premium amount of Rs.8235/- was duly paid. It was the case of the complainant that on April 17, 1998, the vehicle of the complainant was being driven by Mohd. Julfikar to Indore for getting Chilly. At about 4.30 a.m. in the early morning, the driver of Roadways Bus No. MP 13-C-3935 drove the bus with very high speed in rash and negligent manner which resulted in an accident at Yashwant Nagar. Due to said accident, Ram Narainbrother of the complainant who was sitting with Mohd. Julfikar, sustained injuries. Mohd. Julfikar immediately ran away leaving the vehicle but as Ram Narain received serious injuries, he could not come out of the vehicle. The complainant lodged First Information Report (FIR) No. 131 of 1998 with the Manpur Police Station, Yashwant Nagar, District Indore under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against driver Kalu of M.P. Roadways Bus. Vehicle of the complainant was then inspected by Tatas, estimate was prepared and claim was submitted in the prescribed form by the complainant to the Insurance Company on June 12, 1998. The amount of the claim was, however, not paid to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, moved the District Forum praying for an award of Rs.4,70,000/- towards the claim of vehicle, Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards driving charges of the vehicle from Indore to Kota and Rs.25,000/- for survey fee.

5.The Insurance Company filed its reply refuting the claim of the complainant. According to the Company, it had not committed any deficiency in rendering ‘service’. It was also the case of the Company that it had fulfilled all contractual obligations as to claim. The Company informed the complainant about its decision on December 21, 1999 stating that the claim was not allowable and the amount was not payable. The Insurance Company, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

6.According to the District Forum, the main question was whether the Insurance Company was deficient in rendering service and wrongly disallowed insurance claim of the complainant. The Forum considered the question and heard the parties. According the complainant, at the time of accident, vehicle was driven by Mohd. Julfikar who was having a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) as also Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV). In spite of it, the Insurance Company disallowed the insurance claim of the complainant on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. It was also the contention of the complainant that certain documents produced by the Insurance Company were not genuine. The complainant was not an educated man and he knew only how to sign. If the officials of Insurance Company had obtained signatures of the complainant on certain documents without reading over to him and making him pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1528

important pointsTata 709 was rightly held by District Forum to be ‘transport vehicle’. In view of the driver driving a transport vehicle but holding only a LMV license without an endorsement to drive transport vehicle, Insurance Company was not liable for paying any compensation.

Cases Referred (7)

important points
Tata 709 was rightly held by District Forum to be ‘transport vehicle’.
In view of the driver driving a transport vehicle but holding only a LMV license without an endorsement to drive transport vehicle, Insurance Company was not liable for paying any compensation.