PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
Aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 15 of 2002, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., has filed the present petition. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner-insurance company against the order dated 19.11.2001 passed by the District Forum, Jalandhar in complaint case No. 90-DF- 2001, by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the insurance company to settle the insurance claim of the complainant by making payment of Rs. 2,85,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum to the complainant with effect from the four months from lodging of the claim. The State Commission dismissed the appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Kishore Rawat, counsel representing the petitioner-insurance
1
company and Mr. Rajesh Jangra, counsel for the respondent-complainant and have considered their submissions. The facts and circumstances of the case, which led to the filing of the complaint are amply noted in the orders of the fora below and need no repetition at our end. The consumer dispute raised by the District Forum -3-
was in respect of an insurance claim of an insured TATA SUMO Motor vehicle, which met with an accident during the currency of the insurance policy and the insurer having earlier made an endorsement for the commercial vehicle by charging extra premium. Despite the loss suffered by the complainant on account of the damage to the insured vehicle, the insurer repudiated the claim primarily on the ground that on the day, the insured vehicle met with an accident, its driver namely Harinder Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive a motor vehicle like the one insured by the insurance company. Alleging repudiation of claim on the said ground as deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. Insurance Company resisted the complaint on the same ground but without success. Both the fora below have given their own reasoning as to why the stand of the insurance company about the driver of the vehicle not holding a valid driving license could not be upheld. The State Commission rejected the plea of the insurance company on its interpretation of Section 2(21) and Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Mr. Rawat would assail the findings and orders passed by the fora below primarily on the strength of the report received by the investigator of the insurance company Amit Bhardwaj from the District Transport Officer, Nawanshahar in which the said Authority had stated that the
-4-
driving license No. 5391 issued in favour of Harinder Singh, son of Gurmail Singh was for driving a scooter / LMV only valid for the period from 20.02.1998 to 19.02.2001. Mr. Rawat contends that mere holding of a license to drive a scooter and Light Motor Vehicle will not entitle the driver to drive a transport (commercial) vehicle unless the said driver
2
had obtained and granted an endorsement on the license authorizing him to drive a transport (commercial) vehicle and since, no such endorsement was granted on the said license, it should be held that the driver had no authorization to drive a transport vehicle like the Insured Vehicle. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-complainant relying on the contents/endorsement appearing on the driving license (copy at page-40 of the paper book) submits that the driver -Harinder Singh in fact had such an endorsement on his license to drive a transport vehicle as well which was valid for the period from 20.2.1998 to
19.2.2001.
4. Having considered the matter and having perused the above report and the license, it would appear to us that the license granted to the driver-Harinder Singh was also to drive a Light Motor Transport vehicle as well and was not restricted to drive a private light motor vehicle only. Had it been so, the endorsement about the validity period should have been made on the left side column meant for showing the validity of the license to drive a motor vehicle other than the transport
-5-
vehicle. That apart, no specific enquiry was sought from the concerned Transport Authority as to whether the holder of the said driving license was or was not authorized to drive a Light Motor Transport vehicle.
5. Although, we do not agree with the reasoning given by the fora below in support of their finding that the holder of a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle (private) automatically authorized to drive a light motor transport vehicle also which would be contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Versus Prabhu Lal (2008) 1 SCC 696 and the consistent view taken by this Commission in several cases. But in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the insurance company ought to have settled the claim of the complainant going by the recitations appearing in the driving license rather than going by the report received from the concerned Transport Authority, which was inconclusive on the relevant aspect.
3
6. Even after holding that the repudiation of the claim was not justified, the question arises as to whether the fora below were justified in awarding the compensation of Rs. 2,85,000/- as per the survey report which the surveyor had recommended on total loss basis. If that assessment was to be accepted as the basis for award of compensation, the other stipulation in the survey report with regard to the return of
-6-
salvage along with registration book should have been ensured. Counsel for the respondent-complainant, under instructions states that the matter pertains to the year 2000 and therefore, it is not possible for the respondent to hand over the salvage of the vehicle in question, the surveyor had assessed the value of savage at
Rs. 90,000/-. Since the respondent is not in a position to hand over the salvage of the damaged car, the salvage value, as assessed by the surveyor, should be deducted from the loss on total loss basis that would reduce the net claim to Rs. 1,95,000/-. In our opinion, it would adequately meet the ends of justice, if the insurance company is called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from four months after laying the claim till its payment.
7. The Revision Petition is partly allowed in the above terms. Parties to bear their own costs throughout.
......................J
R.C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
S.K. NAIK
MEMBER
4