UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD vs HUKAM SINGH

UNITED India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Petitioner herein) which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 1.10.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in appeal No. 1192/2001 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum and directed the Petitioner to pay Hukam Singh-complainant (Respondent herein) a sum of Rs. 43,144 along with interest @ 9% p.a. and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000.

IN his complaint before the District Forum, Complainant/Respondent had contended that he had got his tempo bearing registration No. PB-13-F-3975 insured with the Petitioner Insurance Company for the period from 31.1.2000 to 30.1.2001 and had paid the necessary premium. During the validity of the policy on 27.7.2000 while he was going to Chandigarh from Ludhiana in the said tempo which was driven by one Jagat Singh, suddenly a cow came before the tempo and in order to save that cow the driver applied the brake and swerved the tempo to the left side of the road, with the result that the tempo struck against a tree and was totally damaged. A daily diary report was made by the driver of the tempo at police post Vardhman Focal Point, Ludhiana and intimation was also given to the Petitioner. Respondent spent Rs. 82,850 on repairs. Petitioner Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss to whom the Respondent paid Rs. 2,690 and also submitted the necessary bills pertaining to the repairs. However, the claim filed by the Respondent was repudiated by the Petitioner Insurance Company on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle did not have the valid/required licence to drive the vehicle. Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim since the driver had a valid licence to drive the LMV (and the tempo weighing only 5,300 kgs. was an LMV). Respondent again approached the Petitioner to reconsider and indemnify his claim which Petitioner Insurance Company failed to do. Respondent therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum on the grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay Rs. 82,850 which was spent by him on repairs, Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental torture and agony and Rs. 5,000 as litigation cost. Petitioner on being served entered appearance and took the stand that the Petitioner was not liable to reimburse the loss reportedly suffered by the Respondent, as the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle since he had a licence which was valid for LMV whereas the vehicle which he was driving and which was involved in the accident was a commercial/goods carrying vehicle for which a separate endorsement in the driving licence was required. In the absence of having this endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, Respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy as also the Motor Vehicles Act and the claim was rightly repudiated.

THE District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint by observing as follows: "The driver had a licence to drive light motor vehicles. As per Clause 21 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen wright of any of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms. This shows that a transport vehicle which is not having more than 7500 kilograms of weight is a light motor vehicle. The R.C. of the disputed vehicle has been placed on the file as Ex.C.4 and the same shows that the unladen weight of the disputed vehicle was only 5300 kilograms as such it has to be taken that the disputed vehicle was a light motor vehicle. Admittedly the driver had a licence to drive the light motor vehicles therefore the repudiation in this case is not in accordance with the rules and is liable to be set aside and the complainant is entitled to receive the loss suffered by him. "

Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the District Forum in toto. Hence the present revision petition.

COUNSEL for the Petitioner is present. Counsel for the Respondent despite service was not present. The case therefore was proceeded ex parte. Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Fora below erred in not appreciating the fact that the driver did not possess an effective and proper driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle as per provisions of Sections 3 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The District Forum failed to consider that the definition of Section 2(21) in respect of the Light Motor Vehicles nowhere states that it also covers commercial or goods carrying vehicle. Further the Fora below wrongly concluded that since unladen weight of the concerned tempo was 5300 kgs. (which is less than 7500 kgs.) it fell within the category of an LMV. The correct position as per Rules is that a driver with an LMV license is not entitled to drive a transport or commercial vehicle (in this case the tempo) unless there is a specific endorsement to this effect in his driving licence. This issue has been settled by a judgment of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, I (2008) CPJ 1 (SC)=IX (2007) SLT 841=I (2008) ACC 54 (SC). We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the Petitioner and the evidence on record. We find substance in the submission of the Counsel for Petitioner that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, Hon ''ble Apex Court has held that an Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse for the loss caused, in case the driver did not possess an effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. The relevant observations of the Hon ''ble Supreme Court in Prabhu Lal (supra) is as under: The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company also referred to a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company v. Kusum Rai and Ors., III (2006) SLT 162=II (2006) ACC 19 (SC)=II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC)=(2006) 4 SCC 250, wherein this Court held that if the vehicle is a taxi which is being driven by a driver holding licence for driving Light Motor Vehicle only without there being any endorsement for driving transport vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be ordered to pay compensation. 44. In the matter of Nasir Ahmed (SLP No. 7618 of 2005), the vehicle was a luxury taxi-passenger carrying commercial vehicle. There also the driving licence issued in favour of the driver was to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and hence the driver could not have driven the vehicle in question. In that case too, the licence was renewed for a period of twenty years i.e. from February 5, 2000 to February 4, 2020. Again, there was no endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act. A specific plea was taken by the Insurance Company but the Authorities held the Insurance Company liable which could not have been done. The reasoning and conclusion arrived at by us in the matter of Prabhu Lal (SLP No. 7370 of 2004) would apply to the case of Nasir Ahmed. That appeal is, therefore, allowed. 45. In Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No. 17794 of 2004), the vehicle involved in accident was a Jeep Commander made by Mahindra and Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, and in view of the fact that the driver was holding licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), he could not have plied the vehicle in question. For the reasons recorded hereinabove in the main matter of Prabhu Lal i.e. SLP(C) No. 7370 of 2004, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable and that appeal also deserves to be allowed.

ADMITTEDLY , in the present case the driver had a licence to only drive an LMV and there was no endorsement on .the licence authorizing him to drive the tempo which was a commercial vehicle. In the absence of this endorsement, the Petitioner Insurance Company was justified in not reimbursing the loss caused to the tempo as a result of the accident.

FOR the reasons stated above, we allow the present revision petition and set aside the order of the Fora below and dismiss the complaint. Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that 50% of the awarded amount has already been paid to the Respondent. If that be so, keeping in view the fact that the cost of recovering this amount is likely to be much more than the amount involved, the Petitioner is directed not to proceed for recovery of this amount. Ordered accordingly. Revision Petition allowed.