NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO vs Hement S Handre

THIS appeal has been directed against the order dated 19.4.1993 of the Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short State Commission) in Complaint No. 272/92. The opposite party before the State Commission is appellant before us.

THE complainant had insured his tempo vehicle with the opposite party -Insurance Company on 19.3.1991. The said vehicle was involved in an accident on 25.4.1991 and the complainant alleged that he suffered damage of his motor vehicle amounting to Rs. 98,320/ -.The incident was reported to the police and also to the opposite party for settlement of his claim of insurance in terms of insurance policy. The complainant alleged that despite his repeated attempts to persuade me opposite party to settle the claim, the latter rejected his claim on the ground that the driver of the tempo was holding "L.M.V. (Motor Car) N.T. Licence". The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming Rs. 98,320/ - as compensation with interest. The State Commission perused the relevant condition of the policy according to which if the vehicle is driven by any person with the knowledge and consent of the insured, the loss is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company; the exception appeared to be that the person driving the vehicle should not be under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The State Commission observed that the complainant''s claim had not been rejected on the ground that die driver of the tempo was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, but the objection of the opposite party was that the driver was holding a light motor vehicle licence and therefore, was not entitled to drive the tempo. The State Commission therefore, concluded that the complainant''s case was wrongly rejected by the opposite party on unreasonable and irrelevant grounds and it constituted a deficiency in the service of the opposite party. They directed the opposite party to settle the claim by paying the complainant a sum of Rs. 98.320/ - together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. towards compensation from the date of the complaint till payment.

IN the appeal, it has been again pointed out that the driver of the vehicle was holding a licence for a light motor vehicle and not for medium goods vehicle. The appellant''s contention is that the vehicle of the respondent complainant was a medium goods vehicle as per Section 2(23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA for short) and that in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance claim is not payable. The appellant has also pointed out that the State Commission accepted as such the loss of Rs. 98.320/ - as claimed by the complainant without any evidence. On the other hand, the extent of damages was duly examined by independent and licenced Surveyors i.e. jointly by M/s. Gargat Surveyors and M/s. United Surveyors and was assessed at Rs. 59,280.50 less cost of salvage valued at Rs. 8,000/ -.

THE case was heard on 14.12.1995 and orders were reserved. However, on 5.2.1996, the respondent -complainant stated before us that the notice intimating him that the case would be heard on 14.12.1995 was received by him only on 14.1.1996 and produced in proof thereof a communication from the Sub -Post Master, Baramati. In the circumstances, we directed reposting of the case for fresh hearing on 12.3.1996. The respondent was absent on 12.3.1996 and upon hearing the Counsel for the appellant, we reserved the orders in the matter. On 13.3.1996 upon being mentioned by the respondent who appeared in person, the appeal was taken on board again; Counsel for the appellant was not present. Besides these hearings, we have gone through the records carefully. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not use or define "tempo". The insured vehicle had a gross vehicle weight of 4,800 kgs. Here let us consider the relevant Sections of Motor Vehicles Act as they stood before the amendment in 1994 as the cause of action in the case arose in April, 1991. Section 2(23) defines medium goods vehicle as any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. Section 2(21) defines "light motor vehicle" as a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 6,000 kgs. In the light of the above, the vehicle in the present case falls under a light motor vehicle. Further, Section 10(2) which deals with the issue of driving licence for different classes of vehicles does not mention "light motor vehicle (motor car) N.T.". Under the circumstances, we concur with the State Commission that the repudiation of the claim by the appellant had not been done on valid grounds and hence this amounts to deficiency in service. However, as for the quantum of compensation we are of the view that it can be fixed at Rs. 51,280.50 being the net amount assessed as damages by the Surveyors. We, therefore, direct the appellant to pay within three months from the date of receipt of this order a sum of Rs. 51,280.50 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of payment. The appeal is disposed of as above. There is no order as to costs.