K.K. Srivastava, President:
1. In this appeal filed against judgment dated 22.8.2003 passed in Complaint Case No. 970 of 2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum], the sole contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Ms. Harpreet Bath was not holding a valid driving licence for driving Tata Safari bearing temporary registration No. HR-01J-7848-Y. It has not been disputed that the aforesaid vehicle was insured by the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited [for short hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company] vide policy/cover No. 652846. The period covered by the said policy was w.e.f. 11.4.2001 to 10.4.2002. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 6.5.2001 at 8.30 p.m. at Chandigarh and it was totally smashed and was beyond repairs. A claim was lodged under the policy of insurance. A Surveyor was appointed by the appellant Insurance Company who submitted his report recommending that the net assessed amount was Rs. 3,98,128/-. The salvage value of the damaged part of the insured vehicle was assessed at a sum of Rs. 30,000/- if disposed timely. The salvage of the aforesaid vehicle, it was alleged, was sold with the consent of the appellant-Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 3,10,000/- and the possession of the vehicle was also handed over. The respondent/complainant lodged claim of the remaining amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- which was repudiated on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence.
2. The appellants/O.Ps. appeared before the District Forum and they contested the complaint case wherein they defended the repudiation of the claim on the ground of the driver of the vehicle not possessing a valid driving licence to drive Tata Safari vehicle. The District Forum received evidence from the respondent/complainant as also the appellants/O.Ps. and recorded a finding that the driver of the vehicle was validly authorised under the driving licence to drive Tata Sumo as well as Tata Safari and as such, the repudiation of the claim was without any legal basis. The complaint was allowed and the O.Ps. were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f. 5.2.2002 after allowing a period of three months for settling the claim. The costs of litigation were quantified at Rs. 1,100/-.
3. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order, this appeal has been filed. Notice of appeal was served on the respondent/complainant who put in appearance through Mr. Rajesh Khurana, Advocate.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the definition of Omnibus as contained in Section 2(29) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act] which reads as under:
â(29) âOmnibusâ means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver.â
5. He also referred to the definition of Motor Car as defined under Sub-section (26) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act, which provides as under:
â(26) âmotor carâ means any motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle, omnibus, road-roller, tractor, motor cycle or invalid carriage.â
6. He also relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hardayan Singh v. Chiranji Lal and Others, AIR 1988 (Punjab and Haryana) 184.
7. Mr. Rajesh Khurana, Advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in the case of Hardayan Singh v. Chiranji Lal and Others 2002 (3) PLR 464, and contended that Maruti Van as also the Tata Sumo or Tata Safari had a passenger capacity of 7 + 1 and these vehicles have been registered as a light motor vehicle and a motor car. He also relied on the communication dated 23.4.1998 written by the Head Office of the appellant-Insurance Company and Sh. P. Chakravarty to Chandigarh Regional Office-II wherein it was mentioned that when a Tata Sumo is registered as a private car then a person holding driving licence for car/jeep can drive Tata Sumo and the claim will not be prejudiced. Reference was also made to a letter dated 31.12.2002. This fact has been deposed to in affidavit dated 24.5.2002 of S. Khushwant Singh son of S. Didar Singh r/o. House No. 3038, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh. The Sale Certificate in Form 21 which has been placed on record and issued by Metro Motors Passenger Car Dealer shows the gross unladen weight of the vehicle being 2550 kgs. which was much less than 7500 kgs. and as such the vehicle in question was a light motor vehicle.
8. It will appear from perusal of policy of insurance regarding the motor vehicle that it was issued in respect of Safari (2001) for use for social, domestic and pleasure purposes and for the insureds own business. It has also been provided that any person including the insured provided that the person driving holds an affective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified for holding or obtaining such licence. Provided further that a person holding an effective learners licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirement of Rule No. 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The vehicle was thus insured as a vehicle for social, domestic and pleasure purposes under the policy of insurance.
9. So far as the judgment of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant is concerned, the matter which requires consideration of the Division Bench, was with reference to a tractor. It may be pointed out that the tractor stands on entirely a different footing than a motor car including the vehicle in question. In the case of Hardayan Singh (supra), the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a licence granted for scooter/motor cycle/jeep shall be considered to be a driving licence for a light motor vehicle as per definition of Light Motor Vehicle as contained in Section 2(21) of the M.V. Act. The District Forum has also referred to this authority and has also relied on the judgment of this State Commission rendered in Case No. 18 of 1998, Inderjit Gulati v. United India Insurance Company, decided on 8.10.1999, wherein it was held that a person authorised to drive car and jeep is also entitled to drive Tata Sumo provided it registered as a private car. The District Forum held that Tata Sumo has same seating capacity as that of vehicle involved in the instant case i.e., Tata Safari.
10. In view of the judgment of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Hardayan Singh (supra) and also in view of the fact that the appellant-Insurance Company itself took a decision, which has been communicated to the Chandigarh Regional Office taking the view that a Tata Sumo registered as a private car could be driven by a person holding a driving licence for car/jeep, the repudiation of the claim of the respondent/complainant by the appellant/O.P.-Insurance Company is not valid and legal. The District Forum has rightly held that the driver of the vehicle had a proper driving licence and she was not disqualified to drive a Tata Safari, which has been insured under the policy of insurance. No other point was pressed in this appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs. 500/-.
11. Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of charge.