National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Narrinder Kumar

Bhawani Singh, Chief Justice.

This appeal is directed against the order of State Consumer Protection Commission (hereinafter for short, Commission) dated April 04,1997. Let

some facts of the case may be stated.

It was passenger bus that was insured with the appellant before us. During the validity of the insurance period, it met with an accident on July

31,1994. Claim for damage to the vehicle was raised and surveyor assessed the same at Rs. 50,191 in the report of November 1994, as per

counsel for the respondent. Before the Commission, case of the appellant was that it had no liability to pay the loss since the driver of the vehicle

did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. Precisely, the objection was that the driver was authorised to drive only Light Motor

Vehicles/Heavy Goods Vehicles and not passenger vehicles. This fact was disputed by the respondent alleging that the driver had valid driving

licence to drive transport vehicles during the relevant period which is not in dispute. Commission examined this question and came to the

conclusion that the driver possessed licence for driving both heavy goods vehicles as well as transport vehicles, therefore, it could not be said that

he did not have valid driving licence.

The above contention is urged before us again by learned counsel for the appellant. We took care to examine this question with reference to the

facts on record and submissions advanced before us by learned counsel for both the sides. A perusal of driving licence clearly demonstrates that

the driver possessed driving licence to drive transport vehicle. Transport Vehicle' has been defined under Sec. 2(47) of the Motor Vehilces Act, as

under:

(47) ""transport vehicle"" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle;

Bus is included in the definition of 'transport vehicle1 and is also a public service vehicle defined under section 2(35), as under:

(35) ""public service vehicle"" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a

maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage;

Reading these two provisions together in the context of communication No. 3857/RTOJ dated November 20,1995, it is absolutely clear that the

driver possessed licence for LM V/HGV and also was authorised to drive a transport vehicle. This fact is clear from RTO competent to make

statement on such facts. The conclusion of the commission is based on the interpretation of this communication and provisions of law. We find

nothing wrong in them and confirm the same. The plea, so raised, is untenable and is, therefore, rejected. 4. The second contention of Shri Gupta is

that the interest at the rate of 18% is on the higher side. On the other side, Shri Anand submits that the accident took place on July 31,1994 and

the report of loss was filed in November 1994. Since then his client is after the appellant for release of the loss amount fighting before the

commission as well as before this court reducing the money value considerably throughout this period. We think, looking to the long lapse of time

particularly from the date of accident and the report of the loss, award of interest at the rate of 18% cannot be held to be unreasonable and unfair.

Therefore, we maintain the rate of interest awarded by the commission on these facts but allow it to be paid from February 01,1995, till the date of

deposit/payment. Shri Anand states that he got some amount released against bank guarantee. Let the bank guarantee be discharged. C. M. P.

filed by the appellant is dismissed. The balance of amount be paid within two months from today.

Appeal disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. Costs on the parties.