UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs DALIP SINGH

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2000 passed by District Forum, Rewari, whereby while accepting the complaint filed by the respondent -complainant, direction has been given to the appellant to release the amount of Rs. 14,225.60 Paise as loss assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 12% per annum to be calculated from 31.3.1999 with the direction to make the payment of the said amount within two months.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the tractor bearing registration No. HR - 36 -B/5642 of the complainant -Dalip Singh was insured with the appellant -opposite p.y for the period 11.5.1998 to 10.5.1999. On 19.1.1999 the tractor was involved in an accident for which an F.I.R. No. 19 dated 28.1.1999 was registered with Police Station Sadar, Rewari under -Sections 279/337/427, IPC. An intimation regarding the accident was also given to the appellant. The Surveyor was deputed to assess the loss and the appellant had agreed to reimburse the amount spent on the repair of the tractor of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant incurred expenses of Rs. 15,771.55 paise for carrying out the repairs of the tractor from M/s. Kishan Tractors, Rewari. All the documents related to the repairs and expenses incurred was submitted by the complainant to the appellant but he was surprised to receive an intimation dated 13.12.1999 wherein they had repudiated the claim. It is, thereafter, he invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking compensation amount of Rs. 15,771.55 paise along with interest @ 18% per annum from 3.2.1999 till its realisation and Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment. On notice to the appellant, the complaint was contested. It was pleaded in the reply filed that after the intimation of the accident was received Shri Anil Juneja, Surveyor was deputed to visit the spot on 20.1.1999 in the presence of the complainant. It was further submitted that on 26.1.1999 final survey was conducted by Shri Yoginder Kumar, Surveyor & Loss Assessor. Thereafter, the loss to the tractor was assessed at Rs. 14,225.60 paise after deducting permissible depreciation subject to re -inspection of the vehicle and return of the salvage. It was further pleaded that the driving licence bearing No. 214. SDO/R/94/P which was valid upto 28.3.1999 issued by the Licencing Authority, Rewari in the name of Randhir Singh was meant for scooter, motor cycle, car, jeep only, the particulars of which were supplied by the complainant to them. It was further averred that the complainant was asked to produce the said licence before them but he failed to do so and for that reason the claim was repudiated and the complaint merited dismissal. The District Forum on appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and documents produced on record accepted the complaint and issued direction as noticed in the earlier part of the order. It is thereafter the present appeal has been filed.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

THE learned Counsel representing the appellant while assailing the order dated 17.10.2000 of the District Forum vehemently urged before us that the District Forum has erroneously rejected the stand taken from the side of the appellant that Randhir Singh, driver did not possess any licence to drive the tractor and for that reason he has violated the terms of the insurance policy and the complainant was not entitled to receive any compensation amount on this account. It is clear from the record of the case that the particulars of the licence was supplied by the complainant himself to the appellant in which it has been specifically mentioned that Randhir Singh was authorised to drive, scooter, motor -cycle, car, and jeep only. The position of law in this regard has been settled in the case, National Insurance Company Limited v. Shinder Kaur and Others, 1998 ACJ 880, wherein the facts were that Harbans Singh was driving tractor No. PB -13 -B -2009 and had caused accident against the bi -cycle of Pashaura Singh on 12.5.1994 as a result of which he was injured and subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition. Objection was taken from the side of the Insurance Company that Harbans Singh did not possess licence to drive a tractor and for that reason it was submitted that it be taken that he was driving the vehicle without proper authority or licence and for that reason the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal held that the licence has been issued to drive a motor car and it includes a tractor and for that reason mulcted liability on the Insurance Company. In appeal, the stand taken by the Insurance Company was accepted and it was held that the definitions of Sub -section (26) and (27) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act clearly indicate that in the definition of motor car, tractor is not included. It was further observed that it may be a light motor vehicle for the purposes of Sub -section (24) of Section 2 of the Act. It was further laid down that these findings get support from the fact that expression tractor has specifically been defined under Sub -section (44) of Section 2 which means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion. Indeed it is clear beyond any pale of controversy that a motor car is not a tractor. In the manner, the appeal was allowed. The ratio of the above mentioned case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. It is proved on record that Randhir Singh, who was driving the tractor at the time of accident did not possess any licence to drive the tractor and thus, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and for that reason the appellant was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, the order under appeal cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set -aside. While accepting the appeal, we dismiss the complaint. Appeal allowed.