National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs SWARNA SONI

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 1.11.1999, whereby the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay to the respondent Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 2.8.1999 i.e., the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment. Apart from this amount, the appellant has also been burdened to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the respondent as well as Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the appeal.

THE respondent filed the complaint on the plea that she was owner of the truck bearing Registration No. HP-39-3381. THE said vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company from 13.5.1997 to 12.5.1998 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. One Shri Jindu Ram was employed by her as a driver to drive the said vehicle, who was having a valid and effective driving licence for that purpose. On 10.10.1997, the said truck fell into a gorge known as ''Bijni Nallah'', as a result of which, it was completely damaged beyond repair. THE said accident also resulted in the death of the driver Shri Jindu Ram. THE FIR (copy Ex. PD) was lodged in respect of that accident at Police Station Sadar, Mandi. THE respondent had also informed the Branch Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company regarding the said accident, who was requested to indemnify the respondent for loss of the truck to the extent of the amount of insurance i.e., Rs. 4,00,000/-. According to the complaint of the respondent, the appellant-Insurance Company had got conducted a survey, as a result of which the estimated cost for repairs of the damaged truck was assessed at Rs. 4,93,236/-. The case of the respondent further was that she had spent Rs. 11,000/- for salvage of the truck from the place of the accident. The Branch Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company was requested time and again by her to settle her claim, but to no avail. Hence, her complaint on the ground of loss of truck as well as mental agony suffered by her for non-settlement of her claim by the appellant.

The appellant-Insurance Company in its reply contested the claim of the respondent on the grounds, inter alia, that the driver Shri Jindu Ram was not having a valid driving licence at the relevant time, inasmuch as there was no valid endorsement on his licence to drive the truck in question. This fact was, thus, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the claim of the respondent. Additionally, it was pleaded that the husband of the respondent i.e., Shri Subhash Soni had given a consent letter, as a result of which he was willing to accept the claim at the sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- on account of total net loss.

IN support of her complaint, the respondent examined her husband and her power of attorney (Ex. PA). He, in turn, produced during the course of the statement, a copy of insurance policy (Exs. PB & PC), copy of the Motor Surveyor Report of the spot (Ex. PE) and a copy of driving licence (Ex. PF). IN counter, the appellant-INsurance Company examined its Branch Manager Shri Ajeet Singh alongwith Vinod Kumar, Clerk of Motor Licensing Authority, Dharamshala. They also relied on certain documents which are Exs. DA/2 to DJ/1 on the record. On the basis of above evidence, the District Forum below found that as per the contents of the insurance policy (Exs. PB, PC), the truck, in question, was insured for the above period, and during the pendency of the same, the accident took place on 10.10.1997. In other words, as per the case of the respondent, she was entitled to be reimbursed regarding her claim. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company rests on the sole fact, as has been submitted before us by the learned Counsel Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma on the alleged invalidity of the driving licence of the deceased driver Shri Jindu Ram. As regards this aspect of the case, we find from a perusal of para-14 of the impugned order of the District Forum that as per the statement of Shri Vinod Kumar (DW-2) who was examined by the appellant as Clerk of the Motor Licensing Authority, Dharamshala, the driving licence of the deceased driver Shri Jindu Ram was renewed vide entry, a copy of which is Ex. D1. As per his further statement, he has verified from the renewal of the driving licence vide verification, copies of which are Exs. DJ and DJ/1. Ex. DI on the record is an abstract of the register of the Motor Licensing Authority, Dharamshala, in which the driving licence of Shri Jindu Ram is entered to have been renewed from 19.8.1989 to 18.8.1998. As per the contents of the driving licence (copy Ex. PF on the record), the same entitled Shri Jindu Ram to drive MTV/HMV on all hill roads, meaning thereby that he was entitled to drive the Heavy Motor Vehicle, in which category the truck would obviously fall. The matter does not rest here. Ex. DJ/1 on the record is a letter written by the Surveyor of the appellant-Insurance Company to the Motor Licensing Authority, Pathankot. The verification of the Licensing Authority, Pathankot on the same shows that as per its office record, the driving licence of Shri Jindu Ram had been renewed from time to time and last entry was from 28.7.1995 to 27.7.1998, whereas the accident admittedly took place on 10.10.1997, on which date the driving licence of Shri Jindu Ram was valid, being still in force. As per the same document Ex. DJ, it was also verified that the driving licence was valid for MTV/HMV/All Hill roads.

IN the face of the above glaring facts, we are of the considered view that the non-settlement of the claim of the respondent by the appellant-INsurance Company was wholly unjustified and untenable in law. Faced with this situation, the learned Counsel for the appellant has referred to Section 2(47) read with Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 2(47) defines ''transport vehicle'' to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Section 3 provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. We fail to see how a combined reading of both these provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act would render the driving licence of the driver Shri Jindu Ram in the present case as invalid in view of the established facts, referred to above. The very fact that the driving licence of Shri Jindu Ram, as verified by the competent Motor Licensing Authority at Dharamshala/Pathankot entitles him to drive MTV/HMV on all Hill roads, would mean that he was authorised to drive the ill-fated truck in the present case. This is so, as a truck would obviously fall in the category of HMV, which is an abbreviation for Heavy Motor Vehicle. If the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant, as propounded by him is accepted, then almost all the driving licences of this type would disentitle the holder from driving a truck, unless the same specifically provides authority to drive a truck and not merely an HMV. No other point has been urged before us in appeal, which is obviously without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.