United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Mahinder Singh

CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 27. 3. 2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad whereby accepting the complaint of the respondent/complainant direction has been given to the appellants/opposite parties to pay Rs. 27,781 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of rejection of the claim i. e. 19. 6. 2000 till realization. In addition Rs. 2,000 has been awarded as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him and Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses.

PUT shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant had insured his Mahindra DI 3150 Cab King under cover note No. JR/98 No. 649608 for the period 10. 10. 1999 to 9. 10. 2000 with the opposite parties. On 14. 4. 2000 the said vehicle met with an accident in the area of Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad, as a result of which expensive damage was caused to the vehicle of the complainant. A FIR No. 61 dated 14. 4. 2000 was registered with the said police station. The complainant got the vehicle repaired on the expenses of Rs. 27,781 from M/s. V. D. Motor (P) Ltd. , Suratgarh Road, Sri Ganganagar. Thereafter, he lodged the claim with the opposite parties with the supporting documents. The claim was repudiated by the opposite parties as per letter dated 19. 6. 2000 on the ground that complainant was only authorized to drive the light motor vehicle, whereas the vehicle in question is a public goods carrier and for that reason he was not authorized to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. Aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by filing the present complaint seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs. 27,781 incurred by him for carrying out the necessary repairs of the vehicle and further to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till payment. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed, they justified the repudiation of the claim on the ground stated above and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on the record, the District Forum found no substance in the stand of the opposite parties and while accepted the complaint, issued the direction to the opposite parties in its order dated 27. 3. 2002 noticed above. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties. Learned Counsel representing the appellant has been heard at length. None has chosen to appear from the side of the respondent at the time of arguments.

At the threshold of the arguments it has been contended by the learned Counsel representing the appellant that District Forum has totally over looked the factual position on record while accepting the complaint because the vehicle in question was admittedly a public goods carrier and at the time of accident complainant himself was driving the vehicle and had possessed the light motor vehicle driving licence only, which did not authorized him to drive the public goods carrier. The submissions made as such cannot be brushed aside. It is clear from the order that the District Forum has accepted the stand of the opposite parties to the extent that complainant was driving the public goods carrier at the time of accident and he possessed the light motor vehicle driving licence but stated that there was no need to get an endorsement on his driving licence authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle as it is not a statutory requirement. The position of law in this regard has been well-settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case National Insurance Company Limited v. Kusum Rai, II (2006) CPJ 8 (SC)=iii (2006) SLT 162=ii (2006) ACC 19 (SC), wherein the facts were that a jeep which was used as a taxi and the driver of the said jeep has been granted licence for driving light motor vehicle. The stand taken by the Insurance Company was that it was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing driving licence for running commercial vehicle. Claim was by a third party. Taking into consideration the various pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it was held that in the judgment that in a case of this nature the owner of vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not. The related observations are contained in para No. 16 of the judgment, wherein it was observed as under: "although we are of the opinion that the appellant was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court was in error in holding otherwise, we decline to interfere with the impugned award, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but we direct that the appellant may recover the amount from the owner in the same manner as was directed in Nanjappan (supra)"

THE above mentioned case has further been referred in case, Abrar Ahmed Ansari v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, I (2007) CPJ 288 (NC)=2007 (1) CPC 421, wherein the facts were that matador bearing No. MP-09-KB-3851 owned by the complainant was insured with the opposite parties and during the pendency of the policy it met with an accident on 5. 1. 2002. The complainant had put a claim of Rs. 75,000 for the expenses incurred for carrying out the repairs of the vehicle, which was repudiated by the company on the ground that driver of the matador was not having a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. The stand of the opposite parties was accepted in view of the observation made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The ratio of the above mentioned cases would fully apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Under the circumstance of the case the opposite parties were fully justified in repudiating the claim because the complainant was holding a light motor vehicle driving licence at the time of accident and was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the public goods carrier.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, while accepting the appeal the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is accordingly dismissed. Appeal allowed.