UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY vs HARMESH SINGH

THE opposite parties of Complaint Case No. 558 of 2002 i.e. United India Insurance Company (for short hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) through Branch Manager, Office SCO No. 357-58, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh and the same Insurance Company through Chairman, Head Office, 24, Whites Road, Chennai felt aggrieved against order dated 14.11.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the complaint of respondent/complainant Shri Harmesh Singh was allowed on the ground that the appellant/O.Ps. committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the respondent/complainant and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 66,505/- and interest @ 6% per annum from 6.12.2001 till payment along with Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation.

THE respondent/complainant Shri Harmesh Singh took Insurance Policy for his Tata Sumo car bearing No. CH-01-4015 from the appellant-Insurance Company, Branch Office, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh. THE comprehensive risk covered under the policy of insurance was Rs. 3,52,000/- and the duration of the policy was from 3.11.2000 to 2.11.2001. THE complainant alleged that he got his air conditioner also insured for a sum of Rs. 27,000/- and stereo for Rs. 25,000/-, which were fitted in the car. THE said car was involved in an accident on 5.10.2001 when it was being driven by the respondent/complainant Shri Harmesh Singh who, it was alleged, was having a valid driving licence for driving the said vehicle. In the accident, the said vehicle Tata Sumo car suffered heavy damages. THE report was lodged with the police and dialy dairy report was lodged on 6.10.2001. THE respondent/complainant lodged his claim under the policy of insurance with the Insurance Company, the appellant who appointed Shri Puri as Surveyor. THE Surveyor conducted the spot survey on 6.10.2001. THE complainant who visited the office of the Insurance Company at Sector 38-B, Chandigarh was told to get the car towed to Chandigarh. Accordingly, the car was brought to the workshop of M/s. Hind Motors India Limited, Chandigarh. All the formalities were completed by the complainant. Shri Puri conducted another survey at the workshop of M/s. Hind Motors India Limited. THE Surveyor, it is alleged, omitted to include in the survey, the change of the alloy wheel, tubeless radial tyre and the damage to the stereo and did not even mention the damage caused to the interior of the vehicle. THE complainant the shell of the car to be replaced. THEse deficiencies on the part of the Surveyor were duly brought to the notice of the Insurance Company, the appellant No. 1. THEreafter, the Insurance Company appointed another Surveyor namely Shri D.S. Rattan who asked the complainant to go ahead with the repairs of the car, which were eventually repaired. A sum of Rs. 63,098/- was spent on the repairs of the car, which were quite major. THE repair bills (Annexures C-5 to C-7) were paid vide Annexure C-4. A sum of Rs. 2,176/- was spent on the repair of the interior of the car vide bills Annexures C-8 and C-9. THE roof cloth of the car was got stitched on payment of Rs. 1,800/- vide Annexure C-10. Air Conditioner of the car was also repaired by spending a sum of Rs. 20,080/- vide Annexure C-11. THE bumber of the car was also repaired and a sum of Rs. 2,150/- vide Annexure C-12 was paid. New tyres and tubes were replaced as the tyres and tubes were damaged in the accident. THE replacement of tyres and tubes caused a sum of Rs. 5,100/-. A sum of Rs. 16,638/- was spent over the stereo vide Annexure C-14 and Rs. 3,400/- for the battery vide Annexure C-15. THE total amount spent over the repair of the car thus came to Rs. 99,442/-. It is alleged that the appellant/O.Ps. vide their letter No. 3347:02 dated 13.5.2002 repudiated the claim on the ground that the respondent/complainant was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. THE complainant described the repudiation of claim as deficiency in service on the part of the apellant-Insurance Company and filed the complaint case seeking payment of a sum of Rs. 99,442/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the claim i.e. 6.10.2001. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- was claimed on account of payment made to K.P. Recovery Service for towing the vehicle from Lalru to Chandigarh. Apart from it, a sum of Rs. 1 lac was claimed on account of mental tension and harassment meted out to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 5,500/- was claimed as litigation expenses. The appellant/O.P.s filed written statement wherein they took a preliminary objection about the non-maintainability of the consumer complaint and took a plea of the complaint being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. It was also alleged that no cause of action had arisen to the complainant. The insurance cover issued in respect of Tata Sumo car was, however, not disputed and the period of insurance was also not challenged. It was, however, denied that the air conditioner of the car stereo were also included in the policy of insurance.

According to the case set up by the Insurance Company, only those appendages which were essential parts of the car were insured and nothing else. The other allegation regarding the bringing of the car from the place of accident to Chandigarh was denied. It was alleged that the second Surveyor Shri Kewal Kumar Rana submitted his re-inspection report (Annexure R-2). It was pointed out that the repair estimate submitted by the complainant to the Insurance Company did not mention that there was loss of stereo or the roofing and flooring of the car. It was denied that the O.Ps. or the Surveyor ever informed the complainant that his claim was being processed. It was empathetically denied that the complainant was holding a valid driving licence. According to the plea taken by the appellant/O.Ps. the respondent/complainant was holding a driving licence only for driving a car/jeep/scooter/motor cycle and not for Tata Sumo vehicle which is a 10-seater vehicle. The repudiation of claim was defended.

THE District Forum after receiving the evidence and hearing the parties held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim. THE District Forum accepted the contention of the complainant that he was competent to drive Tata Sumo car and was having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. As mentioned above, the complaint was allowed barring the claim in respect of air conditioner, stereo, alloy wheel and tubeless radial tyre. The report of the Surveyor Shri Ramesh Kumar was relied upon and compensation was awarded as mentioned above.

THE O.Ps. - Insurance Company felt aggrieved against the impugned order and filed this appeal. THE respondent/complainant put in appearance in respect to service of notice in appeal and contested the case of the appellant. THE record of the complaint case was summoned. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the impugned order and the record of the case. Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company mainly confined his arguments regarding the complainant not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate pointed out that the vehicle in question, which is the subject of the policy of insurance, was a Tata Sumo car having 10 seater capacity and was a transport vehicle, which required a specific endorsement on the driving licence to enable the driver to drive the car. In support of his contention, Mr. Vinod Chaudhari, Advocate placed reliance on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Prakash and Ors., 2001 ACJ 85 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh); Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi & Anr. v. Ranguba & Ors., 1994 ACJ 1280 (High Court of Gujarat); Mahesh Kumar and Anr. v. Hari Shanker Patel & Ors., I (2002) ACC 266 (DB)=2001 ACJ 2071 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Palaniammal & Ors., 1991 ACJ 434 (High Court of Madras); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashok, II (1995) CPJ 208 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Subramaniam & Ors., II (1995) CPJ 520=1991 ACJ 625 (High Court of Madras); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shinder Kaur & Ors., AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 184, and lastly M. Sammamma & Ors. v. Syed Kaja Maunuddin & Ors., II (1992) ACC 477=1992 ACJ 375 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh).

THE District Forum has after perusing the material placed on record held that the driving licence issued to the complainant/respondent was valid from 17.12.1999 to 16.12.2004 for driving car/jeep only as per the official record of the said Licensing Authority. THE argument of the Insurance Company, the appellant that the driving licence did not authorise Shri Harmesh Singh, complainant to drive Tata Sumo car being ten seater was repelled by placing reliance on the authority of the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in the case of Hardayan Singh v. Chiranji Lal & Ors., 2002 (3) PLR 464. THE Hon''ble High Court held that since the licence can be granted by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act only with regard to a kind of vehicle or type of vehicles enumerated therein the mere fact that in the licence of the appellant scooter/motorcycle/car/jeep were mentioned would be of no consequence. THE licence will still be considered to be a driving licence for light motor vehicles.

IN the instant case, the vehicle in question i.e., Tata Sumo was purchased by the complainant for his personal use and not for the use connected with the transport. The mere fact that Tata Sumo was a ten-seater will not take out the vehicle from the definition of vehicle of car/jeep for which licence had been issued to the complainant. The view of this Commission regarding the Maruti Van being a light motor vehicle and the same could validly be driven by a holder of a licence for driving car/jeep was upheld by the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of National INsurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajnesh Chandra being Revision Petition No. 2236 of 2003 decided on 12.11.2003. So far as the Division Bench''s judgment of Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of National INsurance Company Limited v. Shinder Kaur & Ors., Vol. CXVIII- (1998-1) PLR 369 is concerned, that was a case of tractor as distinguished from a car and as such the same would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. The mere fact that the judgment of Hon''ble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Judge, High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Oriental INsurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala, being FAO No. 1206 of 2001 decided on 25.11.2002, which was referred for consideration by a larger Bench, is not sufficient to hold the said view as not binding or effective till the same is not set aside by a larger Bench. We are thus of the considered opinion that the District Forum has rightly recorded a finding that the appellant - Insurance Company committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the respondent/complainant. The order of the District Forum awarding a sum of Rs. 65,505/- as the total costs of repair plus Rs. 1,000/- as towing charges besides Rs. 1,000/- as costs of litigation and with a further direction to pay interest on the amount of compensation @ 6% per annum from 6.12.2001 till payment, cannot be said to be in any way excessive and not warranted by the material placed on record.

Resultantly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs, which we quantify at Rs. 250/-. The amounts ordered to be paid by the District Forum be now paid within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal dismissed.