M/S. Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd vs Tata -Aig General Insurance Company Ltd.

PETITIONER /Complainant has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act '') against impugned order dated 05.08.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh(for short, ''State Commission '') in (First Appeal No. 318 of 2013)

BRIEF facts are that Petitionergot its vehicle insured from the Respondent/Opposite Party, for the period from 4.3.2009 to 3.3.2010 for the insured declared value, to the tune of Rs.6,72,842/ -, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.8,390/ -. On 18.11.2009, at around 7:00 P.M, the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident, near Zirakpur, on National Highway No.1,i.e. Chandigarh -New Delhi Road. The matter was amicably resolved, for which DDR was also lodged, at Police Station Zirakpur, Punjab. Intimation of the accident was duly given on the same day, to the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner was asked to provide the driving license of the driver, valid on the date of accident as the earlier license pertained to the period subsequent to the date of accident. Subsequently, the earlier license of the driver was traced out and same was provided to the respondent. However, respondent vide letter dated 22.05.2010, repudiated the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident was not holding an effective and valid driving license.

IT was stated that the aforesaid acts of the respondent amounted to deficiency in rendering service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed, directing respondent to pay Rs.6,72,842/ -i.e. the amount of total insured declared value; damages to the tune of Rs.1,83,539/, inclusive of estimation charges; compensation, to the tune of Rs.2 lacs on account of deficiency, in rendering service; Rs.3,300/ -, on account of towing charges spent by it, from the site of accident, to the garage of the repairer and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.75,000/ -. The Respondent in its written version, admitted that vehicle in question was insured with them, for the relevant period. It was also admitted that intimation, with regard to the accident of the vehicle in question was received and claim was filed by the complainant. It was also admitted that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, was appointed, which vide its report dated 29.04.2010, assessed the loss on ''''net of salvage basis '''' to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/ -. It was stated that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor, in its report pointed out that the licence of the driver, provided by the petitioner was not valid and effective on the date of accident. Subsequently, petitioner sent another driving license of the driver, issued by the Licensing Authority, Zunheboto, Nagaland. However, the claim was not payable, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy and therefore, the same was rightly repudiated, vide letter dated 22.05.2010. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Respondent nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

DISTRICT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II U.T., Chandigarh (for short, ''District Forum '') dismissed the complaint in terms of its order dated 20.06.2013.

BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same at the preliminary stage, being devoid of merits.

HENCE , this revision.

WE have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as perused the written submissions filed by the petitioner and gone through the record.

IT has been contended by the learned counsel,that the State Commission has travelled beyond the pleadings and concluded that the revisionist ''s driver was not holding the valid driving license. However, on the contrary from the bare perusal of the pleadings,it is evident that respondent never challenged the validity/authenticity of the driving license bearing No.3151/TV/Z/2008, issued by the DTO Zunhebuto, Nagaland.

FURTHER , it has been submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of the revisionist was not liable to be repudiated because the revisionist ''s driver was holding one effective license at the time of accident and even otherwise, he was not disqualified from obtaining any such effective driving license.

IN support of its case, the learned counsel has relied upon following judgments; (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singhand others, 2004 ACJ 1 SC;

(ii) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Ors, JT 2003(2) SC 595;

(iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sant Kumar Goyal, (Revision Petition No.1570 of 2002) decided on 02.12.2004 by his Commission and

(iv) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kishan Bhai, I(2005)CPJ 81(NC).

THE District Forum in its order held; 4. Initially the complainant submitted licence No.PB23/2436/NDL/09 -10 issued by DTO Fatehgarh Sahib as per which, Raghubir Singh was authorized to drive LMV vehicle for the validity from 8.2.2010 to 7.2.2013. On objecting upon that the class of vehicle, which was being driven on the fateful day, was a ''''goods vehicle '''' and the said licence was not valid as it was only for LMV, the complainant furnished another driving licence of the same driver bearing No.31517/ TV/Z/2008 valid from 3.7.2008 to 2.7.2011 issued for MC, LMV, HGV, HTV, class of vehicles. However, the claim was repudiated as the driver of vehicle possessed two different licences which, according to the opposite parties, was in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act.

We have compared the two driving licences annexed as Annexure R -4 and R -6 from where it is revealed that the driver was authorized to drive LMV class of vehicle as per the endorsements of these two licences. We are of the opinion that a person can hold different licences for driving different class of vehicles, or if a person is already holding a valid licence and if he wants to add another category of vehicle to it, the same can be got done by getting it endorsed for such category of vehicle. In such situation, such a holder of valid driving licence would not contravene the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.However, in the present case, Raghubir Singh, driver of the vehicle of the complainant is found to be holding two valid and effective driving licences for LMV class of vehicle for the period 8.2.2010 to 2.7.2011 which is totally against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, we are of the opinion that the stand taken by the opposite parties, while repudiating the claim of the complainant, on the aforementioned ground is just, legal and valid.

THE State Commission, while upholding the order of the District Forum observed; 10. The first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, at the time of accident, the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence, or not. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that copy of the licence of the driver, which was supplied by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties,for settlement of its claim, is Annexure R -4. This licence was valid for the period from 08.2.2010 to 7.2.2013, for driving LMV only,whereas,the accident took place on 18.11.2009.It means that the licence, copy whereof is Annexure R -4,issued by the Licensing Authority/ District Transport Officer, Fathegarh Sahib, Punjab, in favour of the driver of the complainant, Sh.Raghubir Singh, was not valid and effective, as on the date of accident. The Opposite Parties were, therefore, legally right, in coming to the conclusion, that since the licence, copy whereof is Annexure R -4, supplied by the complainant, to them, was not valid and effective, as on the date of accident, the complainant was not entitled to any claim amount.

Thereafter, the complainant stately supplied a copy of the licence Annexure R -6,alleged to have been issued, in favour of the driver namely Sh. Raghubir Singh, who was driving the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, by the District Transport Officer, Zunheboto Nagaland, valid for the period from 03.07.2008 to02.07.2011, for MC, LMV, HGV and HTV only. It is to be seen, as to whether, this licence could be said to be a genuine document or not.No evidence, was produced by the complainant, to prove the genuineness of this licence. Not only this, even the affidavit of Sh.Raghubir Singh, driver of the vehicle, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, to prove that the licence was valid and effective, was not produced by the complainant. Even no official of the Licensing Authority/ Distt. Transport Officer, Zunheboto, Nagaland, was produced, to prove that the licence, copy whereof is annexure R -6,was genuine. In this licence, the permanent address of Raghubir Singh, driver, was mentioned as Village Chunni Kalan, District Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab). The relevant portion of Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as under: -

''''Section 9 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Grant of driving licence. - (1)Any person who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area - (i) in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or (ii)inwhich the school or establishment referred to in Section 12 from where he is receiving or has received instruction in driving a motor vehicle is situated, for the issue to him of a driving licence. The careful perusal of the provisions of Section 9 extracted above, clearly goes to reveal, that a person who was not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence, may apply to the Licensing Authority, having Jurisdiction in the area, in which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, for the issue to him of a driving licence. In Annexure R -6, copy of the licence, alleged to have been issued, by the Licensing Authority/Distt. Transport Officer, Zunheboto, Nagaland, the permanent address of the driver was written as Village Chunni Kalan, District Fatehgarh sahib (Punjab). He was neither an ordinary resident of Zunheboto,in Nagaland, nor was working for gain, at that place. Since, Sh. Raghubir Singh, was neither an ordinary resident of Zunheboto, in Nagaland, nor was carrying on business there, he could not be issued a legal and valid driving licence, by the said Licensing Authority. Driving licence, copy whereof is Annexure R -6, therefore, could be said to be of doubtful authenticity. On account of this reason, copy of this licence, which was provided by the complainant, after non -consideration of its claim, on the basis of first licence, submitted by it, could not be relied upon.

The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the driver of the vehicle could possess two driving licences, at the same time, with regard to the same type of vehicle. According to Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the driver could not hold second licence. The relevant portion of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under ; ''''Motor Vehicles Act 1988 -

Restriction on the holding of driving licences.

(1) No person shall, while he holds any driving licence for the time being in force, hold any other driving licence except a learner''s licence or a driving licence issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 or a document authorizing, in accordance with the rules made under Section 139, the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle.

(2) No holder of a driving licence or a learner''s licence shall permit it to be used by any other person.

(3) Nothing in this Section shall prevent a licensing authority having the jurisdiction referred to in sub -section (1) of Section 9 from adding to the classes of vehicles which the driving licence authorizes the holder to drive ''''.

The perusal of provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, extracted above, clearly goes to reveal that no person, while holding any driving licence, for the time being, in force, could hold any other driving licence, except a Learner''s Licence or a driving licence, issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 or a document authorizing, in accordance with the Rules,made under Section 139. Section 18 relates to the driving licences, to drive motor vehicles, belonging to the Central Government. In the instant case, Sh. Raghubir Singh, driver, who was driving the vehicle, in question, at the relevant time, when it met with an accident, was neither covered under Section 18, nor under Section 139 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Similar principle of law, was laid down by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,New Delhi,inJai Parkash Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC). The licence, copy whereof, is annexure R -6 was alleged to have been issued by the Licensing Authority District Transport Officer, Zunheboto Nagaland, on 03.07.2008 and valid upto 02.07.2011, for MC, LMV,HGV and HTV only, whereas, the licence, copy whereof is Annexure R -4, issued by the Licensing Authority/District Transport Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, was for driving LMV, and it was valid for the period from 8.2.2010 to7.2.2013.It means that Sh. Raghubir Singh, driver of the vehicle was allegedly found to be holding two driving licences, for LMV, for the period from8.2.2010 to 2.7.2011, which was totally against the provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. On this ground too, the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion that the driver could not be said to be holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of driving the vehicle, on the date of accident.

The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, the mere fact that the licence, copy whereof is Annexure R -4, was issued in contravention of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to Raghubir Singh, he could only be penalized, under the said Act, for the commission of an offence. He further submitted that, for such a lapse, the claim of the complainant, could not be legally and validly repudiated. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, does not appear to be correct. Since, the second licence was obtained in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the complainant was not entitled to the claim amount. A driver, who committed an offence, under the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, by obtaining the second licence,in contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could not be said to be holding a valid and effective driving licence. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant,in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. ''''

IT is an admitted fact, that the driver employed by the petitioner was having two driving licenses at the relevant time. We fail to understand as to how a person can have two different driving licenses issued by two different transport authorities at one time.

NONE of the judgments cited by learned counsel are applicable to the facts of the present case.

IT is well settled that under Section 21(b) of the Act, scope of revisional jurisdiction is very limited.

UNDER Section 21 of Act, this Commission can interfere with the order of the State Commission where such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

THE Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ; ''''Also, it isto be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there wasno jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora ''''.

IN the present case, there are concurrent findings of fact given by both the fora below. Thus, no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under section 21 (b) of the Act, since the fora below have given cogent reasons in their order, which do not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction.

IT is not that every order passed by the Fora below is to be challenged by a litigant even when the same is based on sound reasoning.

THUS , the present revision petition having no merits is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/ -(Rupees Ten Thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account '' of this Commission, within four weeks from today. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the cost within prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

LIST for compliance on 26th September,2014.