AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1833/2010- Hazi Noor Mohammad Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur by which, Appeal was allowed.
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent obtained an insurance policy for his vehicle, a Mahindra-Pick-Up bearing registration No. RJ-26-G-628 for a period from 15.06.2006 to 14.06.2007 from the Opposite Party/Petitioner, Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company"). A truck hit the aforesaid pick-up on 17.07.2006, while it was being driven by Ikram Mohammad from Niwai to Jaipur and was badly damaged. An FIR No. 196/2006 was lodged on the same day with the Shivdaspura police station and the Insurance Company was also informed. K.S. Motors, the authorised service center estimated the loss to the extent of Rs.4,37,702.33/-. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who also recommended to settle the claim of the complainant, but the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the pick-up did not possess a valid driving licence to drive "Light Transport Vehicle". Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that vehicle was insured as "Goods carrying commercial vehicle" whereas at the time of accident vehicle was being used for carrying 8 passengers besides driver, which amounted to violation of terms and conditions of Policy. It was further submitted that driver of the vehicle was possessing licence for driving light motor vehicle and learning licence of transport vehicle and he was not authorised to drive the vehicle unless he had besides him a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle, which amounted to violation of terms and conditions of Policy and Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and Opposite Party was directed to pay Rs.3,28,276/- with 9% p.a. interest alongwith Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings, against which this Revision Petition has been filed.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that inspite of clear violations of terms and conditions of Policy, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint and allowing compensation more than IDV value, hence, Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and order of District Forum dismissing complaint be upheld. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent submitted that order passed by the learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, Revision Petition be dismissed.
It is not disputed that complainant''s vehicle was insured by opposite party as goods carrying commercial vehicle having sitting capacity of two persons for IDV of Rs.1,75,000/-. It is also not disputed that vehicle met with an accident and damage was caused to the vehicle. It is also not disputed that at the time of accident, besides driver, 7 to 8 passengers were travelling in the vehicle. It is also not disputed that at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle Ikram Mohammad was holding licence for driving LMV and learner licence for driving HTV.
As 8 to 9 persons were travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident against the capacity of two persons including driver, there was clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of Policy on the part of complainant. As far as driving licence is concerned, admittedly driver of the vehicle Ikram Mohammad was possessing only licence to drive LMV without any endorsement to drive transport vehicle on LMV licence and learner licence to drive HTV. Learned State Commission after referring many judgments including Judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Ashok Gandhadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Company - [III(1999) CPJ 5] observed that as driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence to drive LMV, claim could not have been repudiated on the ground that it was not carrying any endorsement for driving transport vehicle. On the other hand, after considering aforesaid judgment and Judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in 1(2008) CPJ 1 (SC)- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prabhu Lal, I observed in Revision Petition No. 2529 of 2008, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anumula Venkateswarlu that if LMV licence does not contain endorsement of transport vehicle in the licence, driver cannot be held to be possessing valid driving licence to ply transport vehicle and Insurance Company was within its rights to repudiate the claim for damages to the vehicle. For a person driving transport vehicle on learner licence, driver cannot ply the vehicle unless he has besides him a person duly licensed and in the case in hand complainant has not proved this fact that at the time of accident some other persons duly authorised to drive transport vehicle was sitting beside the driver, Ikram Mohammad and in such circumstances it can be held that Ikram Mohammad was driving vehicle without possessing valid driving licence at the time of incident and in such circumstances Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim and learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint but learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal.
It is to our utter surprise that learned State Commission allowed Rs.3,28,276/- as 75% of the loss caused to the vehicle i.e. Rs.4,37,702/- whereas IDV value of the vehicle was only Rs.1,75,000/-. By no stretch of imagination, opposite party was bound to reimburse more than IDV value i.e. Rs.1,75,000/- and unnecessarily contrary to law, learned State Commission allowed claim of Rs. 3,28,276/- and further allowed compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and impugned order is liable to set aside.
Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 31.01.2014 passed by learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 1883 of 2010 - Hazi Noor Mohammad Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is set aside and order of District Forum dated 29.07.2010 passed in complaint No. 388 of 2007- Hazi Noor Mohammad Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., dismissing complaint is affirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.