K.C. Gupta, President:
1. This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 12.12.2006 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed as he was not having valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that appellant (complainant) is owner of three-wheeler bearing registration No. CH-03-P-6810 and was having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent company under policy No. 350300/31/5/02046 vide Annexure C-3 which was valid from 24.6.2005 to midnight 23.6.2006.
3. It was next averred that the said three-wheeler met with accident on 22.8.2005 resulting in its total damage and the appellant also suffered multiple injuries and remained admitted in PGI and was still under treatment. He lodged DDR No. 7 on 26.8.2005 in P.S. Kurali, whose copy is Annexure C-4.
4. It was further averred that the appellant got repaired the three wheeler from CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh and spent the amount as stated in cash memo Annexure C-5 and approached the respondent for allowing his claim but to no effect.
5. Alleging deficiency in service, the appellant claimed Rs. 1,46,468 as detailed in the complaint.
6. Respondent contested the complaint and stated that there was no deficiency in service on its part. It admitted the factum of accident on 22.8.2005 and asserted that Sh. Sanjit Sethi was appointed to assess the loss and after examining the vehicle, he assessed the loss at Rs. 29,732 subject to deposit of salvage. It, however, stated that the claim was not payable to the appellant as the driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident as driving licence was valid only for light motor vehicle and there was no endorsement for driving the transport vehicle and for plying vehicle in the State of Punjab, permit was required and, thus, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
7. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits.
8. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 12.12.2006 dismissed the complaint being merit-less.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.
10. We have heard appellant in person, Counsel for respondent Mr. Raj Kumar Bashamboo and carefully gone through the file.
11. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is owner of three-wheeler bearing registration No. CH-03P-6810 which was insured with the respondent company for the period from 24.6.2005 to 23.6.2006. Unfortunately the said three-wheeler met with an accident on 22.8.2005. The appellant had lodged DDR No. 7 on 26.8.2005 with P.S. Kurali and also submitted claim for reimbursement to the respondent but his claim was repudiated. The main contention of respondent is that appellant was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident i.e. he was having driving licence which was valid only for LMV and not for LMVT. For this contention, he has referred to Sections 3,10 and 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also to an authority of Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai and Others, II (2006) ACC 19 (SC)=III (2006) SLT 162=(2006-2) 143 PLR 246. In the above mentioned authority, it was observed by the Honble Apex Court that the driver was holding driving licence granted to him for driving a light motor vehicle but the said vehicle admittedly was being used as a taxi and thus a commercial vehicle and further the Insurance Company was not liable to pay claim amount as the driver was not possessing valid driving licence. However, the Honble Apex Court declined to interfere as the amount had already been paid as compensation by the Insurance Company but directed National Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner.
12. Section-3 of the Motor Vehicles Act states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or a motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitled him to do so. Section 10 of the Act states about form and contents of licences to drive. According to Sub-section (2) light motor vehicle is a separate vehicle i.e. category (d) and transport vehicle is separate category (e). Section 14 states that a learners licence shall be valid only for a period of six months.
13. The driving licence of Kashmira Singh, appellant was issued by Licensing Authority, Chandigarh on 17.10.2003 and was valid for MCW-LMV only. Ex. R.2 is copy of the registration certificate of vehicle No. CH03 P6810 which is stated to be LMVT vehicle and its unladen weight has been mentioned to be 410 kilograms. Section 2, Sub-section (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 gives the definition of âlight motor vehicle as under :
âlight motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms. â
14. Admittedly the unladen weight of three-wheeler does not exceed 7500 kilograms as its unladen weight is 410 kilograms according to Ex. R.1, the report of Surveyor Sanjeev Sethi dated 14.10.2005. Otherwise also, in the copy of registration certificate Annexure R-2 the category of vehicle has been mentioned to be LMVT. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be a transport vehicle by any stretch of imagination. Since, it is LMV for which appellant had valid driving licence on the date of accident, so, Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay the amount. The contention of learned Counsel of respondent to the effect that it is transport vehicle and separate endorsement on the driving licence as per Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act was required and in the absence of this endorsement the licence was not valid and he was not competent to drive the transport vehicle, in our opinion, is highly misplaced and devoid of any sound reasoning.
15. The Surveyor vide his report Annexure R-1 dated 14.10.2005 had assessed loss of Rs. 29,732. The report of Surveyor cannot be lightly ignored. The appellant cannot be allowed loss on account of daily earning or other miscellaneous expenses. However, he is allowed Rs.10,000 for mental pain and agony. Thus, in all, he is allowed Rs. 39,732.
16. Consequently, the appeal is accepted with costs of Rs. 10,000 and respondent is directed to pay Rs. 39,732 along with interest @ 9% p.a. after one month from the date of report of Surveyor i.e. from 14.11.2005 till payment.
17. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge.