UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD vs VIVEK KUMAR

WHEN hearing in this case commenced, Mr. Chandel learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company forcefully urged, that on the facts of this case, order of District Forum Mandi, in Consumer Complaint No. 54/2008, dated 29. 3. 2008 cannot be sustained. As according to him from the facts on the complaint file what is made out is, that the respondent had two driving licences at the time of accident. One having been issued by the Licensing Authority, Phagwara, Punjab and the other having been issued by the Competent Authority at Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP. Present case being of injury sustained by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in the accident in question, therefore, unless it was established by cogent and reliable evidence, that the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence, no amount could be claimed by the injued. Vehicle involved in the accident being a transport vehicle, driver should possess valid licence to drive the same. As such the impugned order deserves to be set aside and consequently complaint dismissed.

GREAT emphasis was laid by Mr. Chandel in support of this submission on Annexure C-6, the copy of the repudiation letter, as well as on the verification report of Sh. R. P. Bhasin and Co. , Surveyors/assessors. Licence purported to have been issued by the Licensing Authority of Phagwara, Punjab was got verified by one Sh. R. P. Bhasin who vide his letter dated 28. 3. 2007, informed the DO Mandi, through Branch Office Phagwara of the appellant, that during verification he was verbally informed by the concerned officer, that licence is not as per office record and is not a genuine one copy of this letter is at page 39 of the complaint file. Another fact that needs to be noted here is, that at the time of accident respondent was not driving the vehicle. What is its effect we shall deal with it later on. Further admitted facts between the parties are, that driving licence was issued in the first instance by the Licensing Authority at Sundernagar which was valid between 31. 7. 2000 to 30. 7. 2003, this was got renewed on 3. 8. 2007 and was valid upto 2. 8. 2010. Photostat copy of the renewed licence produced is Annexure C-5, it is genuine and in this behalf document is at page 46. Report of Engineer Bhupinder Singh read with the certificate issued under the seal and stamp of Licensing Authority, Sundernagar dated 18/3 clearly establishes this fact.

Accident took place on 20. 8. 2006 during the validity of the insurance policy issued by the appellant for the period 7. 10. 2005 to 6. 10. 2006. From the record there is nothing to suggest, that whether the licence issued by Sundernagar Authority was effective on this date or not because initially it was valid upto 30. 7. 2003 and thereafter it was got renewed upto 2. 8. 2010. Period of both, i. e. the issuance of original licence, as well as after its renewal was 3 years is again not in dispute.

IN this background instead of settling the claim, vide Annexure C-6, it was repudiated. This resulted in filing of Complaint No. 54/2008. This complaint was contested by the appellant on the ground, that the respondent was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the dispute between the parties cannot be tried in a summary manner under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Appellant wanted the respondent to take recourse to ordinary law. Insurance Company was not deficient in service and the claim under personal accident cover for owner-cum-driver was not tenable for want of driver holding a valid and effective driving licence. All these pleas have been contested by Mr. Verma on behalf of the respondent. Per him, that validity as well as effectiveness of the driving licence of his client must be presumed to have been ascertained when insurance was undertaken. So far contention of Mr. Chandel, that the driver was not holding an effective driving licence on the date of accident is concerned, there is lot of substance in it. Reason being that the driving licence of the respondent had expired on 30. 7. 2003 and was later on got renewed upto 2. 8. 2010 from the Licensing Authority, Mandi. In this behalf again reliance placed on the provision of Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 needs to be upheld. The proposition of law established is well founded and is accepted. Reason being that when a licence expires and is got renewed within 30 days of the date of expiry, it dates back to the date of expiry, and if it is got renewed after 30 days of its expiry then it is effective from the date of renewal and not to a date anterior to it. Accordingly so far the plea disputing the validity/effectiveness of the driving licence on the date of accident is concerned, we uphold the same that the driver was not holding such a driving licence.

HOWEVER the next question, that arises is that whether on this ground alone the appeal deserves to be allowed or not. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, we feel that even after upholding the contention of Mr. Chandel, the order impugned deserves to be modified subject to certain conditions. It was not disputed at the time of hearing on behalf of the appellant, that insurance of the vehicle was undertaken by the agent/development officer of the appellant. In the ordinary course of things such person was duty bound in law to have verified and satisfied himself regarding the fact, that the person on whose life policy of insurance is being issued as owner-cum-driver was possessed of the effective and valid driving licence or not. The person who undertook the insurance does not appear to have bothered to verify the driving licence of the respondent. That being the position he was negligent in discharging his duty towards the appellant as its agent/development officer. Otherwise presumption is that while undertaking insurance, the agent/development officer had satisfied himself about the existence, validity and legality of all the relevant papers viz. the ownership as well as route permit, etc. , of the vehicle in question, together with driving licence of the owner-driver. At the risk of repetition we may observe, that no doubt we have upheld the contention of Mr. Chandel, that there was no effective driving licence when accident took place, but what was the agent/development officer doing when he undertook the insurance of the vehicle in question, learned Counsel for the appellant had no answer. In the circumstances of this case, we are more than satisfied that the agent/development officer was totally reckless and negligent besides being careless in undertaking the insurance in question without having checked necessary documents including valid and effective driving licence. Therefore while upholding the order, we feel that because of negligence of its agent/development officer appellant, which is a public sector undertaking wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India should not be made to suffer. Ordered accordingly.

FACED with this situation Mr. Chandel on behalf of the appellant stated, that the respondent had shown the driving licence purported to have been issued by the Licensing Authority at Phagwara. On what basis this submission is being made, nothing could be pointed out by Mr. Chandel from the complaint file. We however feel that the appellant which is also a limb of welfare State, needs to be compensated by the agent/development officer who had undertaken the insurance of the vehicle between the period 7. 10. 2005 to 6. 10. 2006. Had mind been applied and all papers including driving licence seen before undertaking the insurance, probably the personal accident risk would not have been covered.

NO other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while modifying the impugned order of the District Forum below, in Consumer Complaint No 54/2008, dated 29. 3. 2008 it is directed, that in the first instance in terms of the said order, the appellant shall pay the amount to the respondent with interest and costs as assessed by the District Forum below. At the same time we direct that this being a clear-cut case of negligence on the part of its agent/development officer, if the appellant decides, then it will be entitled to recover the amount from the concerned officer/official. And in such a situation, after issuing show cause notice to such officer/official, the appellant will be entitled to recover the same from the concerned officer/official after hearing him and also after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to such officer/official. Appeal is finally disposed of in these terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All interim orders passed from time-to-time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost as per rules. Appeal disposed of.