Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member
Kailash Chandra Kalkhundia —Petitioner
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1448 of 2008
(Against the Order dated 01/03/2008 in Appeal No.53/2007 of the State Commission Uttaranchal)
Decided on 18.9.2017

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. K.K. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Repudiation of claim on ground that driver of insured vehicle did have a valid driving licence at the time of accident is justified.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to insured vehicle in accident—Repudiation of claim on ground that driver of insured vehicle did have a valid driving licence at the time of accident—Vehicle was MGV and it was being driven by a driver who did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident—Terms and conditions of insurance policy had been violated—Respondent was justified in repudiating claim—Revision petition dismissed.
       Held: I have gone through the advertisement placed on record. From this it is not clear whether from the said advertisement whether only TATA LCV 407, 709 were LCVs or even 1109. No literature has been placed on record to support the stand of the petitioner that TATA TPT/ 1109 is a light commercial vehicle/ goods vehicle. The petitioner in his revision petition has admitted that he was under the impression that it was a light commercial vehicle and was not a medium goods vehicle otherwise, he would have hired a driver who is a having a valid driving licence to drive medium goods vehicle and for this no one should be blamed. In the form no. 21 issued by the M/s Mega Motors CVD there is cutting against the heading ‘Class of vehicle’ by which LCV had been added in hand in the said form. Though there is a stamp of Mega Motors CVD with signature but the signature does not match with the signature at the bottom of the form and the correction is undated. Hence, it is not known at what stage this correction has been made and by whom. It would also appear that the Transport Authority had issued the registration certificate mechanically quite ignoring the provisions of MV Act by categorising the said vehicle as LCV based on the form no. 21 issued by the dealer.
       In view of the above, discussion, it is an admitted fact that the said vehicle was MGV and it was being driven by a driver who did not have a valid driving licence on the date of the accident, hence, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had been violated. Thus, the respondent no. 1 was justified in repudiating the claim.
       In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 03.01.2008 of the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.53 of 2007.

2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner purchased a Mini truck Tata 1109 in the year 2002 bearing registration no.UA03/ 0921. The said vehicle was insured with respondent no. 1 vide policy cover note no. 31/ 2003/ 448 and was effective from 08.05.2002 to 07.05.2003. The said vehicle met with an accident on 03.11.2002 between Bagarihat and Khulbiyari near Joljibi, Thana Askot, District Pitthoragarh and the vehicle got badly damaged. The cause of the accident as stated by the petitioner was failure of the vehicle’s brakes. The petitioner informed the insurer immediately and lodged a claim for the loss. A spot survey was conducted by the surveyor on 06.11.2002 and the photographs of the accidented vehicle were also taken on 22.11.2002. As stated by the petitioner, on the basis of the surveyor’s report the insurer had offered the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- against the claim which the petitioner refused to accept because the authorized service centre had estimated the cost of repairs at Rs.3,97,000/-. The petitioner sent letters to the insurer on 26.03.2003, 19.04.2003, 23.05.2003 and 26.08.2003 for settling his claim, but the insurer did not take any action. The petitioner also sent a letter dated 19.04.2003 to the customer service centre. Ultimately, on 03.02.2004, the insurer/ respondent no. 1 repudiated the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and thus, the insured – petitioner had violated the terms of the policy. Hence, the petitioner filed the aforesaid consumer complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:

(a) Order of the opposite party to pay Rs.2,17,468.68 towards repairs of vehicle and Rs.16,640/- expenses from place of accident to workshop to the complainant;

(b) Due to delay in payment the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.2,92,160/- to the complainant;

(c) Rs.50,000/- towards mental pain and legal expenses may be ordered to be given to the complainant by the opposite party and interest @ 18% per annum on total amount may be ordered to be given to the complainant from the opposite party.

3. Respondent no. 1 in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udham Singh Nagar (‘the District Forum’) had opposed the complaint on the ground that the driver Basant Vallabh Patni who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident had a driving licence which was valid only for light motor vehicle (transport). According to the registration certificate the gross weight of the vehicle in question was 10,500 kilograms and hence the vehicle came in the category of heavy vehicle. The claim of the petitioner was repudiated for violation of the terms of insurance contract by the petitioner and the petitioner was not entitled to any kind of compensation.

4. Respondent no. 2 – M/s Mega Motor in their written reply stated that the petitioner had purchased a TATA 1109 truck from them which was a light commercial vehicle and rest of the contents did not relate to them.

5. After hearing the case, two orders were passed, i.e., one by the President and the second order was passed by two Members. The President, District Forum vide its order dated 05.02.2007 while partly allowing the complaint held as under:

“The complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party no. 1 is directed to pay Rs.1,83,181/- towards damages along with interest @ 6% per annum on the above amount from 23.03.2004 and Rs.2000/- litigation charges within one month. Besides this to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages to the complainant within one month. Photocopy of this decision and order be sent to the Commissioner and Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Uttarakha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTRepudiation of claim on ground that driver of insured vehicle did have a valid driving licence at the time of accident is justified.

IMPORTANT POINT
Repudiation of claim on ground that driver of insured vehicle did have a valid driving licence at the time of accident is justified.