Back
UTTARANCHAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi,
President & Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
VIJAYA DEVI—Respondent
Appeal No. 1 of 2004—Decided on 15.6.2004
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. K.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pradeep Barthwal, Advocate.
The driver of the vehicle must have a valid driving licence endorsed for hill area, and in the absence of such endorsement, the claim can be allowed on a non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the assessed amount.
Headnote:
Insurance - Vehicle Insurance - Valid Driving Licence for Hill Area - The court held that the driver of the vehicle must have a valid driving licence endorsed for hill area, and in the absence of such endorsement, the claim can be allowed on a non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the assessed amount.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's vehicle, registered as a taxi, met with an accident. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence endorsed for hill area.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was entitled to the claim on a non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the claim amount, and awarded a sum of Rs. 28,610 to the complainant.
Issues: Dispute over the validity of the driver's licence for hill area and the entitlement of the complainant to the claim amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The driver of the vehicle must have a valid driving licence endorsed for hill area, and in the absence of such endorsement, the claim can be allowed on a non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the assessed amount.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed and partly dismissed, and the complainant was awarded a sum of Rs. 28,610 to be paid by the appellant within a month.
Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 24.11.2003 passed by the District Forum., Tehri, Garhwal whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed for recovery of Rs. 38,000/- (Rupees thirty-eight thousand).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint that she is the owner of the vehicle No. UA07A-4970 (registered as Ambassador Taxi). It met with an accident on 8.9.2002 at Tehri-Srinagar road near Pokhal. The complainant spent Rs. 38,350/- (Rupees thirty-eight thousand three hundred fifty) in its repairs. The Insurance Company is not paying the amount of expenses, although the vehicle was insured on the date of accident. She has lodged the claim on 10.9.2002. It was repudiated on 26.12.2002 on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding driving licence endorsed for hill area, therefore, the driving was against the terms of the policy and, therefore, the claim was repudiated.
3. This is exactly the written statement of the appellant who has filed this appeal also on the same ground.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. Admittedly this is Ambassador Car. Admittedly it was registered as Taxi. Admittedly it met with an accident. There is no dispute regarding the expenses of the repair of the vehicle. The only dispute is that the driver was not holding valid driving licence on the date of accident.
5. The learned Counsel for the complainant referred the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Neelam Saluja, reported in I (2004) CPJ 279=2004 CLR 318, in which it was held that in case of private vehicles, such endorsement is not necessary. Under Rule 190 of the Motor Vehicle Act Rules.
“No person shall drive a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle on a hill road unless his licence to drive such public service vehicle or goods vehicle has been endorsed by a registering authority with a permission to drive upon hill roads situated within the jurisdiction of such registering authority or in the case of public service vehicle hired to tourists, by the registering authority of the State with which reciprocal arrangements on the point have been agreed upon.”
Admittedly the vehicle is registered as taxi. Merely because it was going with family members, it would not become a private vehicle.
6. Our attention was drawn on the notification of the office of the Transport Commissioner, Uttaranchal that in Chardham Journey endorsement for hill driving is not necessary. There is no case that this vehicle was on Chardham Yatra. Therefore, it is clear that the notification will not apply. In the F.I.R. dated 8.9.2002 also it is not said that the vehicle was on Chardham yatra. It is, therefore, clear that the vehicle was being driven without endorsement for driving on hill area.
7. Our attention was also drawn on the judgment given by this Commission in Appeal No. 127/2003, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Chepari Devi, decided on 21.10.2003, wherein it has been held:
“However there is also judgment of this Commission in Appeal No. 384/2002, National Insurance Company v. Deen Dayal Chamoli, in which it was decided that according to control of Traffic Rules, 1993, the claimant can get compensation on Non-standard Basis. This judgment was given by this Commission on the basis of ruling of National Commission reported in II 2001 CPJ 53, National Insurance Company v. Munni Lal Yadav. In the ruling reported in 2003 CPJ 204, Oriental Insurance Co. v. Ramdhan Aggarwal, the National Commission has again held that when the driver was not having valid driving licence the claim can be allowed on Non-standard Basis, i.e., 75% of the assessed amount.”
8. In view of what has been said above the complainant was entitled only to the claim on non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of the claim amount. The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 37,140/- (Rupees thirty-seven thousand one hundred forty) say it roughly Rs. 37,000/- (Rupees thirty se
