IMPORTANT POINT
Lack of valid driving licence goes to root of matter.

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 03.11.2016 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (‘the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 2453 of 2011.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle no. UP 14 E 4845. The petitioner purchased the vehicle by taking loan from the District Manager, UP Schedule Caste and Finance and Development Corporation Ltd., Ghaziabad. The said vehicle was insured under the passengers carrying package (Taxi) cover no. 415016 with effect from 24.12.1997 to 23.12.1998 with respondent/ insurance company. The said vehicle met with an accident on 24.01.1998 and the Insurance Company was informed. Expenditure of Rs.2,01,140/- was incurred on the repairing of the said vehicle. Thereafter, insurance claim was presented to the insurance company. A surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company. The insurance claim was not accepted by the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid commercial driving licence at the time of accident. A complaint was filed before the District Forum for deficiency in service committed by the Insurance Company.

3. The insurance company contended that after an enquiry was conducted it came to notice that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the claim of insurance was rejected for violation of the terms of the insurance. Respondent insurance company had not committed any deficiency in service.

4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ghaziabad (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 28.11.2011 while dismissing the complaint observed as under:

“It was vehemently argued on behalf of the complainant that before sanctioning of the loan to him, a selection committee constituted by UP Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation Ltd., Ghaziabad had ensured the fact that the complaint was holding a commercial driving licence. Though the complainant put forward the aforesaid arguments yet he did not submit his driving licence or its photocopy along with his complaint. It cannot be disputed that the insurance company has the right to conduct an enquiry pertaining to the insurance claim claimed regarding an accident. The insurance company has the full right to verify the driving licence of the driver. Complainant has not filed any driving licence with his complaint. The insurance company has filed the photocopy of the driving licence of the complainant along with the written statement according to which the driving licence of the complainant is for driving a light motor vehicle. There is no dispute to the fact that the vehicle in question was Jeep. The respondent insurance company has mentioned sub section 2 (25) of Motor Vehicle Act wherein a vehicle carrying less than six passengers including driver has been defined as Motor Cab. In this way it is confirmed that the vehicle in question comes under the category of Motor Cab. As per definition of Section 2 (35) Motor Cab also comes under the definition of Public Service Vehicle. Insurance Company has submitted the report prepared by its surveyor. According to surveyor the driving licence of the driver bears the no. 2689/ Gzb/88, which has been issued on 24.04.1998 by the RTO Ghaziabad. This licence was valid from 18.05.1995 to 17.05.1998. There was no endorsement of PSV on this licence by the RPO Ghaziabad. It is revealed by the record that the complainant has produced a photocopy of his licence after arguments which bears the endorsement of being transport vehicle with effect from 16.02.2006 to 15.09.2009 but the complainant is not entitled to have benefit of this because it is to be seen in the present matter whether the licence was authorised or not for Public Service Vehicle on the date of accident, i.e., 24.01.1998. As has been me