Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Ravinder Kumar (LRs) —Petitioner(s)
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4205 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 29/08/2014 in Appeal No. 263/2013 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 17.8.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr Arvind Dua, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr Harsh Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance claim of a vehicle has to be considered by insurer even if driving licence of driver is found fake in verification but owner had appointed him after seeing his driving licence which seemed genuine.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 51]—Motor insurance—Driving licence—Driver was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident—District Forum allowed complaint by directing opposite party insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 49,300/- loss assessed by Surveyor, along with 9% interest —Composite amount of Rs. 10,000/- for compensation and cost was also ordered—State Commission vide its impugned order allowed appeal and dismissed complaint—Insurance claim of a vehicle has to be considered by insurer even if driving licence of driver is found fake in verification but owner had appointed him after seeing his driving licence which seemed genuine—Case of petitioner is stronger than case of a fake licence as driver in present case has a driving licence though not entitled to drive a vehicle of a specific category as alleged by insurance company—In present case also, claim should be settled on non-standard basis, i.e., 75% of claim admissible as per Surveyor’s report—Respondent Insurance Company directed to settle insurance claim on non-standard basis—Respondent Insurance Company directed to pay Rs.36,975/- (75% of Rs.49,300/-) to complainant along with 9% interest. (Paras 2, 3, 7 and 8)
Result: Revision Petition Partly allowed.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member—In this revision petition, order dated 29.08.2015 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh (in short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 263 of 2013 has been challenged by the petitioner Ravinder Kumar (since deceased and represented by LRs).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the vehicle of the petitioner met with an accident on 15.04.2010 due to sudden appearance of stray cattle. A claim for Rs.1,22,630/- was filed by the complainant before the insurance company, however, the same was not settled by the insurance company. Hence, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle (heavy goods vehicle) and the driver of the vehicle was having a license of LMV/HMV but did not have the endorsement for a transport vehicle. Thus, the driver was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. The District Forum however, allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 49,300/- the loss assessed by the surveyor, along with interest at the rate 9% per annum from the date of lodging of complaint till actual realization. A composite amount of Rs. 10,000/- for compensation and cost was also ordered.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party/insurance company preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the license of the driver was valid till 05.06.2010 and accident had happened on 15th April 2010. Thus, the driver was having a valid driving license on the date of accident. The assertion of the opposite party that the driver was not having the license to drive goods vehicle is not sustainable because this was not a heavy goods vehicle for which a different license was required. The unladen weight of the vehicle in question is mentioned as 3720 kg and the registration laden weight is 11,950 kgs and this weight should be more than 12,000 kgs for a heavy goods vehicle. Thus, there was no requirement of any endorsement for driving this vehicle. Thus, the driver has not violated any law and the order of the State Commission is not sustainable. In support of his argument, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Devangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2017 SC 3668 wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that driver holding LMV license can drive all vehicles of this class including transport vehicles.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company stated that the license of the driver was only for light motor vehicle and the same was not endorsed for driving a transport vehicle. The State Commission has critically examined this issue and has reached to the conclusion that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Clearly this is a violation of a condition of the policy and therefore insurance claim has rightly been rejected by the State Commission.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. From the registration certificate of the vehicle, it is clear that the registration laden weight of the vehicle is mentioned as 11,950 kilograms which is less than 12,000 kgs and thus this vehicle cannot be treated as HGV as per definition of HGV. But the vehicle is also not a LMV because its gross weight is more than 7500 kgs. Thus, the driving licence of the driver was not sufficient to drive this vehicle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmala Kothari vs United Insurance Co
