UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs LAXMI NEGI

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 310 of 2008 United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Smt. Laxmi Negi & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

Brief facts of the case are that Complainant No. 1/Respondent No. 1''s husband and Complainant No. 2/Respondent No. 2''s father deceased Om Prakash Negi was owner of Mahindra & Mahindra pick up bearing registration No. HP-25/1219 which was duly insured with the OP-Company for Rs.3,42,000/- and the insurance policy was valid up to 3.1.2002. That on 18.3.2001 at about 11.30 p.m. the ill-fated vehicle met with fatal accident at place 4 km away from village Rarang towards village Khadra with the result the deceased OM Prakash Negi who was driving the vehicle received injuries and succumbed to these injuries on spot. That matter about accident was reported to OP-Company and lodged the claim with them, but the OP-Company dilly-dallied the settlement of the insurance claim on one pretext or the other despite lapse of more-than two years. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that the seating capacity of the disputed vehicle is 2+1 whereas at the time of the accident, eight persons were sitting in the ill-fated vehicle. As such it being breach of conditions of insurance policy the OP-Company was well within their right to repudiate the claim of the complainant which was conveyed vide letter dated 11.3.2002. They however, alleged that the final survey was conducted by Sh. Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,15,128.63 on repair basis, but as there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, claim was not payable and rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,15,129/- with 9% p.a. and further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.1500/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof that driver had no valid driving licence to drive goods vehicle and number of passengers in goods vehicle were travelling beyond capacity, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

It is not disputed that insured vehicle was registered as light motor vehicle and as per information supplied by Registering and Licensing Authority the vehicle was classified as LGV (light goods vehicle) and owner/driver of the vehicle Om Prakash was possessing licence for LMV on hilly roads. Admittedly, incident took place on 18.3.2001 before amendment of 28.3.2001 under the Motor Vehicle Act. Hon''ble Apex Court in - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria Alias Nesaragi and others, 2008 3 SCC 464 on which learned State Commission also placed reliance observed as under: "A light goods carriage having not been defined in the Act, the definition of the light motor vehicle clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle.

From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for ''medium goods vehicle'' and ''heavy goods vehicle''. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.

The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law".

Thus, it becomes clear that driver of the vehicle was possessing valid licence for driving aforesaid vehicle at the time of accident.

As far sitting capacity of the vehicle is concerned, as per certificate of insurance and registration certificate, 3 persons including driver were allowed to sit in the vehicle whereas 6 persons were found in the vehicle. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not placed any evidence on record that 6 persons were sitting in the cabin and in such circumstances, it can be presumed that passengers were sitting in back site of cabin where goods were to be kept and in such circumstances, travelling more passengers in the vehicle did not contribute to accident and accident occurred due to failure of steering system. Not only this, perusal of record further reveals that extra passengers were not taken in the vehicle voluntarily by the driver, but as per investigators report, persons assembled on the spot boarded vehicle without driver''s permission and in such circumstances, learned State Commission rightly observed that there was no violation of terms & conditions of the policy.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.