UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD. vs VINOD KUMAR B.SHAH

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, [Act for short] is directed against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad dated 8.12.1998. The appellant is original opponent and the respondent is the original complainant.

WITH a view to dispose of this appeal, we would refer to only minimal relevant facts as emerge from the record and submissions made by the learned Advocate of either parties before us. The complainant had Tata delivery van bearing Registration No. GJ-1-V-7145 which was being used for transportation of goods. The said vehicle was insured with the opponent United India Insurance Company Limited covering the risk for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the period from 13.4.1992 to 12.4.1993. The said vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. The estimate of repairs was obtained by the complainant and the claim was preferred with the opponent. Surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss caused to the vehicle to the extent of Rs. 88,726/-. However, the opponent delayed the settlement of claim by appointing a Surveyor and waiting for his final report. Ultimately, the opponent repudiated the claim on 14.6.1993. The complainant filed the complaint on 12.10.1995 before the City Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent on account of delay in settlement of the claim.

The opponent resisted the claim on the ground that the driver was not holding valid driving licence and the complaint was time- barred as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The learned Forum, after hearing both the parties, ordered as under : "The complaint is hereby allowed. The opponents jointly and severally are directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs. 90,105/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.4.1993 till payment and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost. The opponents to comply with one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."

AGGRIEVED with this order of the learned Forum, the opponent has come up in appeal. In the grounds of this appeal, opponent has alleged that the Forum has erred and failed to appreciate the issue of limitation and failed to appreciate the decisions cited by the opponent on the issue of validity of driving licence held by the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

WE have gone through the evidence on record including all the papers on record submitted by the parties before the learned Forum. WE have also heard the arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties. First question which would merit consideration is whether the endorsement in driving licence to drive a transport vehicle is necessary in the facts of the present case and whether the driver was authorised to drive the transport vehicle in question as per the facts of the present case. For the purpose of appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, we would first reproduce the relevant part of Form No. 6, form of driving licence [See Rule 16(1)] of Motor Vehicles Act. "The holder of this licence is licensed to drive throughout India vehicles of the following description : Motor cycle without gear Motor cycle with gear Invalid carriage Light motor vehicle Medium goods vehicle Medium passenger motor vehicle Heavy goods vehicle Heavy passenger motor vehicle A motor vehicle of the following description. The licence to drive a motor vehicle other than transport vehicle is valid from.to.. The licence to drive transport vehicle is valid from.to.. Name and designation of the Authority who conducted the driving test Signature and designation of the Licensing Authority. Authorisation to drive transport vehicle number.. Date.. Signature Designation of the Licensing Authority."

IT is not in dispute that where licence for ''L.M.V.'' is issued, endorsement to licence ''Transport Vehicle'' is made in that licence, wherever the concerned person is so licensed. The learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that if a person has licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), he does not require such an endorsement. As against this, it was submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that there is a condition in the policy itself which reads as under, which runs counter to the argument of learned Counsel for the complainant. "Provided that the person driving holds or has held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules made there under for the time being in force to drive the category of Motor Vehicle insured hereunder."

(Emphasis ours)

NUMBER of decisions have been submitted by both the learned Counsels on the question whether a person holding licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) will require such an endorsement or not. We need not go to all the decisions which have been canvassed on the point since both the learned Counsels have ultimately relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, III (1999) CPJ 5 (SC)=VII (1999) SLT 317=(1999) NCJ (SC) P. 508. As this decision is throwing enough light on the issue, we will reproduce below paras 3 to 13 of the citation : "3. Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the "Act''), 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. Section 3 is as under : ''3. Necessity for driving licence - (1) 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; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which Sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.''

This section uses two expressions, namely, "motor vehicle" and "effective driving licence". "Effective" would mean a valid licence both as regards the period and type of vehicle. We are not considering here otherwise any incapacity of the person holding a driving licence", "Motor vehicle" or "vehicle", "transport vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "goods carriage", "heavy goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle" have been defined in Section 2 of the Act as under : "driving licence" (Clause 10) means the licence issued by a Competent Authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description; "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" [Clause (28)] means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres; ''transport vehicle'' [Clause (47)] means a public services vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle; "light motor vehicle" [Clause (21)] means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unloading weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms; "goods carriage" [Clause (14)] means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods; "heavy goods vehicle" [Clause (16)] means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms; and "medium goods vehicle" [Clause

(23)] means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. 8. Naga Saheb Jadhav, the driver was having the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. On the day of the accident, vehicle was not carrying any goods. Contention of the insurer has been that the vehicle was a goods carriage and thus a transport vehicle. Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes the form under which a driving licence is to be issued. It is Form No. 6, Jadhav was having a driving licence in Form 6 which was for driving a light motor vehicle. There was no endorsement on his driving licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. For a vehicle to be a transport vehicle, it must be a goods carriage which in turn means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or when not so constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or when not so constructed or adapted used for the carriage of goods. We have the definitions of "heavy goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle". There is no definition of "light motor vehicle". If we apply the definition of a "light motor vehicle" as given in Clause (21), Section 2 of the Act to mean a "transport vehicle" which in turn means a "goods carriage", then we have nowhere the definition of a "light motor vehicle" without it being a "goods carriage". Section 2 of the Act begins with the words "unless in this Act the context otherwise requires". We have, therefore, to give a meaningful interpretation to "light motor vehicle" as given in Clause (21). Clause (e) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 defines "non-transport vehicle" to mean a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle [Clause (e) renumbered as Clause (h) by 1993 Amendment to Rules]. This definition would, therefore, take out of the definition of "transport vehicle'' as given in Clause (21) light motor vehicles which are not goods carriage. 9. Chapter V of the Act contains provisions for control of transport vehicles. Under Section 66 of the Act falling under this Chapter no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods except in accordance with the conditions of permit granted by the Prescribed Authority authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Sub- section (1) of Section 66 we quote : ''66. Necessity for permits - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any Prescribed Authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used : Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage : Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not : Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.'' 10.Section 77 deals with an application for permit to use a motor vehicle for the carriage of goods. Section 78 prescribes relevant considerations for processing such an application. Section 79 provides for grant of goods carriage permit. 11.There is no evidence to record and no claim has either been made by the insurer that the vehicle in question was having a permit for goods carriage. If we accept the contention of the insurer, there can never be any light motor vehicle and there can never be any driving licence for a light motor vehicle. We cannot put such a construction on Clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act so as to exclude a light motor vehicle from the Act altogether. Light motor vehicle is a motor vehicle to drive for which Jadhav possessed effective driving licence. His driving licence was valid on the date of accident. In allowing the claim of the appellant the State Commission held that ''the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident, had as a matter of fact, a valid driving licence for driving a light motor vehicle and there is no material on record to show that he was disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence at the time of accident. In view of these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the policy does not insist on the driver having a licence to drive, to obtain a specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle''. We, however, do not subscribe to such a view. 12.Definition of "light motor vehicle" as given in Clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to a "light goods vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle". A "light motor vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by the definition of "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in Clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle can be non-transport vehicle as well. 13.To reiterate, since a vehicle cannot be used as transport vehicle on a public road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority for that purpose, and since in the instant case there is neither a pleading to that effect by any party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle. The respondent also does not say that any permit was granted to the appellant for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle under Section 66 of the Act. Moreover, on the date of accident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods, and though it could be said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or goods carrier, it cannot be so held on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act."

It will be clear from the reading of aforesaid paragraphs of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court that the driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) can drive the vehicle designed to be used as a transport vehicle or goods carrier not carrying any goods at the time of the accident. In other words, the endorsement to drive transport vehicle in a licence to drive light motor vehicle is not necessary to drive an empty transport vehicle but it is certainly required so as to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods. Therefore, the arguments and submissions to the effect that no endorsement to drive transport vehicle on a driving licence regarding light motor vehicle (LMV) is in all cases necessary cannot be accepted as such a broad proposition certainly does not emerge from the aforesaid decision of the honourable Supreme Court.

Second question that will arise for our consideration is whether the driver of the vehicle in question was holding valid licence to drive transport vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was used as a transport vehicle for carrying goods when the accident occurred. This question takes within its sweep a larger question as to whether complicated facts requiring elaborate evidence appear from whatever evidence that is placed on record in this respect.

THE complainant has submitted xerox copy of the driving licence to the Insurance Company. That xerox copy of the driving licence did not have any such endorsement. He, however, submitted a certificate dated 25.1.1993 from the Regional Transport Officer, Ahmedabad with such endorsement (regarding permission to drive a transport vehicle). THE learned Counsel for the complainant has shown to us a duplicate licence which bears such an endorsement but does not show the date thereof. It would, therefore, appear that the complainant produced different licences at different stages. As against this, the opponent has produced a letter from the RTO issued on 14.5.1993 suggesting that the endorsement made in driving licence with authorisation to drive transport vehicle is false and might be treated as null and void. Now, in this connection, the officers /employees of the Regional Transport Office have been examined before the learned Forum. THEir oral evidence has further complicated the issue. THE said oral evidence apparently reflected doubt about correctness and genuineness of the endorsement as also the certificate suggesting that the driver had authority to drive a transport vehicle. Besides, even the date from which the driver had such authorisation is also in doubtful shape as stated above. THE learned Forum has not considered the highly complicated set of evidence which has been placed on record. It has merely considered the endorsement and the certificate in that respect without dealing with the counter evidence on the same fact. Simply because Mr. J.M. Bharwadia, one of the witnesses from RTO admitted that the disputed endorsement/certificate was issued from the Regional Transport Office and simply because the receipt in that respect was also issued from the said office it cannot be said that the endorsement in the certificate stood proved to the exclusion of other certificate and the evidence from the same office, namely RTO. THEre clearly appears to be some mischief played at the level of the staff of the Regional Transport Office and the same has been made visible on the face of the evidence which has been placed on record. Further investigation in that regard and further evidence to come to the clear conclusion as to which of the two versions from the same office, viz. RTO is correct will obviously be needed in a detailed trial. In that view of the matter, the question obviously would require elaborate documentary and oral evidence and that will be in any event beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of Consumer FORA. In above view of the matter, since this case involves complicated questions of facts and law requiring detailed oral and documentary evidence, it will be beyond the purview of the jurisdiction under the Act and the same can be dealt with effectively in the Civil Court. It was finally submitted that the complaint before the learned Forum was barred by limitation inasmuch as letter of repudiation was issued on 14.6.1993 whereas the complaint was filed on 12.10.1995. As against this, the learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that letter dated 27.10.1994 saved the complaint from the vice of limitation. We do not propose to decide the question of limitation in view of the fact that we have already expressed to relegate the parties to the Civil Court where they can raise their rival pleas and disputes for being adjudicated by the Civil Court.

IN the result, following order is required to be passed. The impugned order dated 8.12.1998 rendered by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad in Complaint No. 707/1995 is hereby set aside with a rider that the complainant might approach the Civil Court if he so desired. This appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.