Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs RAJENDRA KUMAR AJMANI

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 4.8.2006 in Complaint No. 132/2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) directing the appellant insurer to pay to the complainant/respondent compensation of Rs. 1,00,845 with interest @ 9% p.a. payable from 31.3.2005. Besides, cost of Rs. 1,000 was also awarded.

INDISPUTABLY the complainant/respondent is the owner of Swaraj Mazda vehicle having registration No. CG-10-A-5410. The said vehicle was comprehensively insured by the appellant insurer covering the risk thereof, from 23.2.2004 to 22.2.2005. It is also now not in dispute that, the said vehicle met with an accident on 16.5.2004 near village Limtara on Bilaspur-Raipur Road. The complainant reported the accident to the appellant insurer and on the direction of the appellant, got it repaired. The surveyor Utkarsh Shingwekar, appointed by the appellant insurer, in his report dated 7.7.2004 assessed the loss to the vehicle at Rs. 1,00,845. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the appellant insurer by their letter dated 31.3.2005 on the ground that the driver driving the vehicle at the time of accident did not possess valid and effective driving licence. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation as above, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 with interest and cost, etc. The complaint was resisted by the appellant insurer. It was averred that the driver Manoj Kumar Yadav did not possess driving licence for driving goods vehicle. Therefore, he was not competent to drive the vehicle in question. It was stated that the claim of the complainant was justifiably repudiated. It was accordingly prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

The District Forum in the impugned order held that the driving licence of the driver Manoj Kumar Yadav discloses that initially he was issued the licence for driving light motor vehicle. However, subsequently on 17.6.2003 he was issued the licence to drive heavy goods vehicle also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the driver did not have valid and effective driving licence. It was further held that the appellant insurer committed deficiency in service by repudiating the complainant''s claim. The amount as assessed by the Surveyor with interest was awarded as compensation in favour of the complainant/respondent.

HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. As noticed above, the basic question that arises for consideration is as to whether the driver Manoj Kumar Yadav held a valid and effective driving licence?

LEARNED Counsel for appellant drew our attention to Rule 7 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules which provides that a certificate of authorization to drive transport vehicle shall be granted in the manner provided therein. LEARNED Counsel for appellant relied upon the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC)=III (2006) SLT 162=2006 ACJ 1336, wherein it was held that if the driver holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, but was driving a jeep which was being plied as taxi i.e., commercial vehicle, it would be treated as breach of contract of insurance as the driver did not have valid licence to drive a commercial vehicle. LEARNED Counsel also relied upon the decision of National Commission in Abrar Ahmed Ansari v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., I (2007) CPJ 288 (NC)=2007 (1) CPR 237 (NC) in which similar preposition has been laid down. It may be noticed in the above context that the vehicle Swaraj Mazda is a light motor vehicle. The photocopy of the licence of driver Manoj Kumar Yadav would indicate that the licence was initially issued in his favour for driving light motor vehicle. However, subsequently on the application filed by him, licence to drive heavy goods vehicle including transport vehicle was issued in his favour on 17.6.2003. The endorsement to that effect has been made by the licensing authority. The complainant has also produced copy of the application filed by the said driver Manoj Kumar Yadav seeking permission to drive heavy goods vehicle. It appears that permission was so granted, as would appear from the endorsement made on the said licence. Therefore, it appears that driver Manoj Kumar Yadav had licence for driving light motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle as well as transport vehicle on the date of the accident which admittedly took place on 16.5.2004. It appears that licensing authority had informed that licence to drive only light motor vehicle was initially issued. However, from the endorsement as above, it appears that driver Manoj Kumar Yadav had licence to drive transport vehicle-heavy goods vehicle. There appears to be no reason to suspect such endorsement and the owner of the vehicle-the complainant could not be expected to make inquiries regarding the correctness of the endorsement apparently made by the licensing authority. In view of above the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for appellant would not render any assistance to the appellant''s case.

HENCE, the finding as above of the District Forum that the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the appellant was improper, appears to be justified and is based on proper appreciation of material documents and circumstances of the case. The said finding is affirmed.

THIS appeal has no substance. It is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed. The appellant shall bear its own cost of this appeal and shall pay that of the complainant/respondent, which is quantified at Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand) only. Appeal dismissed.