DILIPSINH RAMUBHA PARMAR vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

THIS appeal arises from order dated 29.11.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surendranagar dismissing Consumer Disputes Complaint No. 71 of 1995. The complainant is, therefore, before this Commission by way of this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

WE have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. WE have gone through the impugned order. WE have gone through the material placed on record including the copies of FIR, Panchnama, driving licence of the driver who was at the wheels when the accident took place and survey report. Brief facts of the case would indicate that the complainant who wanted to enter business of travelling purchased Maruti Van of 1992 model as per the particulars set out in the complaint and the opponent Insurance Company had insured the said van for the period in question (31.7.1993 to 30.7.1994). On 15.1.1994 when the van in question was being taken to Mumbai it was stationary on the road on account of police signal. At that point of time (when the van was stationary) a goods truck came from behind and dashed against the van in question damaging the same as per the particulars noted in the survey report. The complainant submitted claim form along with driving licence, FIR, Panchnama and other required papers but the opponent Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that although the driver had valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV), he did not have required licence or endorsement to drive transport vehicle along with badge in that respect. Complainant was aggrieved with the said repudiation resulting in filing of aforesaid complaint before the learned Forum with a claim of Rs. 57,800/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment and cost of the complaint.

Opponent Insurance Company resisted the claim on the same ground namely the driver who was driving the van in question at the time of accident did not have required licence to drive the vehicle. The learned Forum upheld the repudiation also on that ground relying upon the decision of the National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Ladu Kishore Sahu, reported in III (2003) CPJ 99 (NC).

FACTS of the case, as stated above clearly indicate that the accident did not take place on account of any act or omission on the part of the driver of the van in question. In fact, the accident took place when the van was stationary at the police signal. It was only on account of the goods truck hitting the van from behind that the accident occurred. It is a vital fact which distinguishes the decision of the National Commission in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Ladu Kishore Sahu, (supra). In that case the driver who was at the wheels was driving the vehicle holding light motor vehicle licence but was not authorised to drive a taxi. The accident occurred when he was driving the vehicle in contrast with a stationary vehicle as in the present case. The National Commission, in the background of such facts, had the occasion to consider the definitions of motor cab, public service vehicle, taxi, transport vehicle and LMV as contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Upon consideration of the relevant clauses in respect of different classes of vehicles, the National Commission came to the conclusion that the act of the driver in driving the taxi was no legal and such driving was in contravention of the terms of the policy conditions. However, it should be noted from the decision that the proximate cause of the accident was his driving the vehicle and not merely sitting at the steering wheel. In the present case, the driver was holding LMV licence but did not have transport vehicle licence. However, the van which he was driving was stationary at the police signal. The proximate cause of the accident was not attributable to him in any manner and this factual aspect has been conceded. In that view of the matter, repudiation of the claim on the ground that the driver did not hold transport vehicle licence or endorsement at the relevant point of time could hardly be said to be justified. Almost similar situation came to be considered by the honourable National Commission in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Khodil Singh, III (2003) CPJ 185 (NC). In that case also damage to the vehicle occurred at the time when the vehicle was stationary. The National Commission held that under such circumstances whether the driver held valid driving licence or not was not relevant. In our considered opinion, this decision will apply to the peculiar facts of the present case, common feature whereof is that the vehicle was stationary when the goods truck hit it from behind. It is not in dispute that the Surveyor has assessed the claim at Rs. 9,585/- net. The complainant has prayed for highly exaggerate amount of compensation in the complaint. Besides, repudiation also could not be said to be mala fide. Bearing in mind all these circumstances of the case we would accept the net amount of loss assessed at Rs. 9,585/- for the same being awarded by way of compensation to the complainant. We would also award interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint in view of the facts and circumstances of the case while relying on the decision of the National Commission in National Insurance Company Limited v. Khodil Singh (supra). We, however, do not propose to award any cost.

IN the result, following order is passed. ORDER Impugned order dated 29.11.2003 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surendranagar dismissing Consumer Disputes Complaint No. 71 of 1995 is hereby set aside. The complaint shall stand granted in the following terms. Opponent INsurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 9,585/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment. This appeal is accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs throughout. Appeal Partly allowed.